On May 22, 1997, DOE published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (62 Federal Register 28009) announcing its decision to prepare an environmental impactstatement (EIS) that would tier from the analysis and decisions reached in connection with the ''Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Final Programmatic EIS (Storage and Disposition PEIS)''. ''The Surplus Plutonium Disposition Draft Environmental ImpactStatement'' (SPD Draft EIS) (DOWEIS-0283-D) was prepared in accordance with NEPA and issued in July 1998. It identified the potential environmental impacts of reasonable alternatives for the proposed siting, construction, and operation of three facilities for plutonium disposition. These three facilities would accomplish pit disassembly and conversion, immobilization, and MOX fuel fabrication. For the alternatives that included MOX fuel fabrication, the draft also described the potential environmental impacts of using from three to eight commercial nuclear reactors to irradiate MOX fuel. The potential impacts were based on a generic reactor analysis that used actual reactor data and a range of potential site conditions. In May 1998, DCE initiated a procurement process to obtain MOX fuel fabrication and reactor irradiation services. The request for proposals defined limited activities that may be performed prior to issuance of the SPD EIS Record of Decision (ROD) including non-site-specific work associated with the development of the initial design for the MOX fuel fabrication facility, and plans (paper studies) for outreach, long lead-time procurements, regulatory management, facility quality assurance, safeguards, security, fuel qualification, and deactivation. No construction on the proposed MOX facility would begin before an SPD EIS ROD is issued. In March 1999, DOE awarded a contract to Duke Engineering & Services; COGEMA, Inc.; and Stone & Webster (known as DCS) to provide the requested services. The procurement process included the environmental review specified in DOE's NEPA regulations in 10 CFR 1021.216. The six reactors selected are Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 in South Carolina McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 in North Carolina, and North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2 in Virginia. The Supplement describes the potential environmental impacts of using MOX fuel in these six specific reactors named in the DCS proposal as well as other program changes made since the SPD Draft EIS was published.

This document provides an overview of existing environmental and ecological information at areas identified as potential locations of the Savannah River Site's (SRS) Surplus Plutonium Disposition (SPD) facilities. This information is required to document existing environmental and baseline conditions from which SPD construction and operation impacts can be defined. It will be used in developing the required preoperational monitoring plan to be used at specific SPD facilities construction sites.

Infusion Pump Informatics NEED IMPACTSTATEMENT INITIATIVE Working with Purdue's Rosen Center for Advanced Computing, RCHE developed the Infusion Pump Informatics (IPI) System. IPI member hospitals upload their infusion pump alert data to the system each month. The system is web-based and highly interactive. Drawing

24 January 2014 Green Impact Environmental Statement Human Resources Human Resources is one of the University of Kent's professional services departments involved in Green Impact. We gained Bronze Awards with an Excellence Project which will engage other Registry colleagues. Green Impact offers schools and departments

In 1990, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) embarked upon the Resource Contingency Program (RCP) to fulfill its statutory responsibilities to supply electrical power to its utility, industrial and other customers in the Pacific Northwest. Instead of buying or building generating plants now, BPA has purchased options to acquire power later if needed. Three option development agreements were signed in September 1993 with three proposed natural gas-fired, combined cycle combustion turbine CT projects near Chehalis and Satsop Washington and near Hermiston, Oregon. This environmental impactstatement addresses the environmental consequences of purchasing power from these options. This environmental impactstatement addresses the environmental consequences of purchasing power from these options.

DRAFT Environmental ImpactStatement for the Truckee Meadows Flood Control Project Nevada General Reevaluation Report Volume I ­ Draft Environmental ImpactStatement prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District May 2013 #12;#12;DRAFT Environmental ImpactStatement for the Truckee Meadows Flood

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) was formally introduced in Egypt in 1994. This short paper evaluates 'how well' the EIA process is working in practice in Egypt, by reviewing the quality of 45 environmental impactstatements (EISs) produced between 2000 and 2007 for a variety of project types. The Lee and Colley review package was used to assess the quality of the selected EISs. About 69% of the EISs sampled were found to be of a satisfactory quality. An assessment of the performance of different elements of the EIA process indicates that descriptive tasks tend to be performed better than scientific tasks. The quality of core elements of EIA (e.g., impact prediction, significance evaluation, scoping and consideration of alternatives) appears to be particularly problematic. Variables that influence the quality of EISs are identified and a number of broad recommendations are made for improving the effectiveness of the EIA system.

In December 1996, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published the ''Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Final Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement (Storage and Disposition PEIS)'' (DOE 1996a). That PEIS analyzes the potential environmental consequences of alternative strategies for the long-term storage of weapons-usable plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU) and the disposition of weapons-usable plutonium that has been or may be declared surplus to national security needs. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the ''Storage and Disposition PEIS'', issued on January 14, 1997 (DOE 1997a), outlines DOE's decision to pursue an approach to plutonium disposition that would make surplus weapons-usable plutonium inaccessible and unattractive for weapons use. DOE's disposition strategy, consistent with the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the ''Storage and Disposition PEIS'', allows for both the immobilization of some (and potentially all) of the surplus plutonium and use of some of the surplus plutonium as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in existing domestic, commercial reactors. The disposition of surplus plutonium would also involve disposal of both the immobilized plutonium and the MOX fuel (as spent nuclear fuel) in a potential geologic repository.

The Entrepreneurial Leadership Academy(ELA)NEED IMPACTSTATEMENT INITIATIVE Discovery Park's Burton to test new business and operational models for the airline industry Development and launch of graduate on sustainable technologies related to energy, transportation, and agriculture #12;

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission prepared this statement to assess the environmental impacts of constructing and operating a proposed 70-megawatt hydroelectric dam and electrical infrastructure on the Cowlitz River near Morton and Randle, Washington. The U.S. Department of Energy's Bonneville Power Administration adopted this statement on 12/6/1990 to fulfil its National Environmental Policy Act requirement for its proposed action to acquire the power output from the Cowlitz Falls Hydroelectric Project.

This document contains the appendices for the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Business Plan: Supplemental Draft Environmental ImpactStatement. Included are: BPA products and services; Rate design; Methodology and assumptions for numerical analysis; Retail utility operations; Comments and responses to the draft business plan EIS.

Network for Photovoltaic TechnologyNEED IMPACTSTATEMENT INITIATIVE In early 2009, the Discovery graduate students have received several best poster and paper awards; A hub for photovoltaic research://nanohub.org/groups/PVWorkshop The NPT is becoming an international center for photovoltaic research to connect islands of excellence

, scoping period for the Bering Sea Salmon Bycatch Management Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS). An EIS and decision-making. The EIS will serve as the central decision-making document for management measures being. The EIS will provide decision-makers and the public with an evaluation of the environmental, social

United States. Bonneville Power Administration; Washington (State). Dept. of Fish and Wildlife; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington.

1996-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

BPA proposes to fund several fishery-related activities in the Yakima River Basin. These activities, known as the Yakima Fisheries Project (YFP), would be jointly managed by the State of Washington and the Yakima Indian Nation. The YFP is included in the Northwest Power Planning Council`s (Council`s) fish and wildlife program. The Council selected the Yakima River system for attention because fisheries resources are severely reduced from historical levels and because there is a significant potential for enhancement of these resources. BPA`s proposed action is to fund (1) information gathering on the implementation of supplementation techniques and on feasibility of reintroducing coho salmon in an environment where native populations have become extinct; (2) research activities based on continuous assessment, feedback and improvement of research design and activities ({open_quotes}adaptive management{close_quotes}); and (3) die construction, operation, and maintenance of facilities for supplementing populations of upper Yakima spring chinook salmon. Examined in addition to No Action are two alternatives for action: (1) supplementation of depressed natural populations of upper Yakima spring chinook and (2) that same supplementation plus a study to determine the feasibility of reestablishing naturally spawning population and a significant fall fishery for coho in the Yakima Basin. Alternative 2 is the preferred action. A central hatchery would be built for either alternative, as well as three sites with six raceways each for acclimation and release of spring chinook smolts. Major issues examined in the Revised Draft EIS include potential impacts of the project on genetic and ecological resources of existing fish populations, on water quality and quantity, on threatened and endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act, and on the recreational fishery.

Every two years, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) prepares a Resource Program which identifies the resource actions BPA will take to meet its obligation to serve the forecasted power requirements of its customers. The Resource Program`s Environmental ImpactStatement (RPEIS) is a programmatic environmental document which will support decisions made in several future Resource Programs. Environmental documents tiered to the EIS may be prepared on a site-specific basis. The RPEIS includes a description of the environmental effects and mitigation for the various resource types available in order to evaluate the trade-offs among them. It also assesses the environmental impacts of adding thirteen alternative combinations of resources to the existing power system. This report contains the appendices to the RPEIS.

In accordance with the Department of Energy`s National Environmental Policy Act implementing procedures in Volume 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1021,312, the Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement Implementation Plan has two primary purposes: to provide guidance for the preparation of the Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement and to record the issues resulting from the scoping and the extended public participation process. The Implementation Plan identifies and discusses the following: background of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management activities, the purpose of the Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement, and the relationship of the Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement to other Departmental initiatives (Chapter 1); need and purposes for action (Chapter 2); scoping process and results of the public participation program in defining the scope of the Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement, including a summary of the comments received and their disposition (Chapter 3); planned scope and content of the Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement (Chapter 4); consultations with other agencies and the role of cooperating agencies (Chapter 5); planned schedule of major Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement milestones (Chapter 6); and responsibilities for preparation of the Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement (Chapter 7).

This volume contains the appendices for the Final Environmental ImpactStatement for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Alternative geologic environs are considered. Salt, crystalline rock, argillaceous rock, and tuff are discussed. Studies on alternate geologic regions for the siting of WIPP are reviewed. President Carter's message to Congress on the management of radioactive wastes and the findings and recommendations of the interagency review group on nuclear waste management are included. Selection criteria for the WIPP site including geologic, hydrologic, tectonic, physicochemical compatability, and socio-economic factors are presented. A description of the waste types and the waste processing procedures are given. Methods used to calculate radiation doses from radionuclide releases during operation are presented. A complete description of the Los Medanos site, including archaeological and historic aspects is included. Environmental monitoring programs and long-term safety analysis program are described. (DMC)

One of the key steps of the Environmental Impact Assessment Process, defined by Directive 337/85 'on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects' is the preparation of the Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) of a Project. The quality of the EIS is of great importance to properly inform the public and the decision makers about the significant environmental effects of the project. Using the 'Guidance on EIA-EIS Review' 2001 report, produced with the support of the European Commission, this paper analyses the overall quality of 46 recently elaborated EIS from Portugal and Spain (1998-2003). It also analyses the quality of the various chapters of the EIS and the Non-Technical Summary. A comparison is made between the quality of the EIS from Portugal and from Spain. The results for Portugal are also compared with those of other European countries (Ireland and United Kingdom) in similar periods. Finally it presents overall conclusions and suggestions for improvement.

The Puget Sound Area Electric Reliability Plan Draft Environmental ImpactStatement (DEIS) identifies the alternatives for solving a power system problem in the Puget Sound area. This Plan is undertaken by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Puget Sound Power & Light, Seattle City Light, Snohomish Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD), and Tacoma Public Utilities. The Plan consists of potential actions in Puget Sound and other areas in the State of Washington. A specific need exists in the Puget Sound area for balance between east-west transmission capacity and the increasing demand to import power generated east of the Cascades. At certain times of the year, there is more demand for power than the electric system can supply in the Puget Sound area. This high demand, called peak demand, occurs during the winter months when unusually cold weather increases electricity use for heating. The existing power system can supply enough power if no emergencies occur. However, during emergencies, the system will not operate properly. As demand grows, the system becomes more strained. To meet demand, the rate of growth of demand must be reduced or the ability to serve the demand must be increased, or both. The plan to balance Puget Sound`s power demand and supply has these purposes: The plan should define a set of actions that would accommodate ten years of load growth (1994--2003). Federal and State environmental quality requirements should be met. The plan should be consistent with the plans of the Northwest Power Planning Council. The plan should serve as a consensus guideline for coordinated utility action. The plan should be flexible to accommodate uncertainties and differing utility needs. The plan should balance environmental impacts and economic costs. The plan should provide electric system reliability consistent with customer expectations. 29 figs., 24 tabs.

This is volume 1 of the final environmental impactstatement of the Bonneville Power Administration Information is included on the following: Purpose of and need for action; alternatives including the proposed action; affected environment; and environmental consequences.

This Appendix O of the Final Environmental ImpactStatement for the Columbia River System measures the economic and social effects of the alternative system operation strategies and includes both geographic and methodology components. Areas discussed in detail include the following: purpose, scope and process; an economic history of the Columbia River Basin and its use today including the Columbia River and Socio-economic development in the Northwest and Major uses of the River System; Analysis procedures and methodologies including national economic evaluation, the concepts, analysis of assumptions, analysis for specific river uses, water quality, Regional evaluation, analysis, and social impacts; alternatives and impacts including implementation costs, andromous fish, resident fish and wildlife, flood control, irrigation and municipal and industrial water supply, navigation impacts, power, recreation, annual costs, regional economic analysis. Extensive comparison of alternatives is included.

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has completed a supplemental draft Environmental ImpactStatement (SDEIS) for the proposed Kangley-Echo Lake Transmission Line Project. The proposed line in central King County, Washington is needed to accommodate electrical growth and reliability concerns in the Puget Sound area. The SDEIS analyzes four additional transmission alternatives not analyzed in detail in the draft Environmental ImpactStatement (DEIS) issued in June 2001, and a number of non-transmission alternatives.

This Appendix J of the Final Environmental ImpactStatement for the Columbia River System discusses impacts on the recreational activities in the region. Major sections include the following: scope and processes; recreation in the Columbia River Basin today - by type, location, participation, user characteristics, factors which affect usage, and managing agencies; recreation analysis procedures and methodology; and alternatives and their impacts.

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the US Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared this document as environmental input to future decisions regarding the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), which would include the disposal of transuranic waste, as currently authorized. The alternatives covered in this document are the following: (1) Continue storing transuranic (TRU) waste at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) as it is now or with improved confinement. (2) Proceed with WIPP at the Los Medanos site in southeastern New Mexico, as currently authorized. (3) Dispose of TRU waste in the first available repository for high-level waste. The Los Medanos site would be investigated for its potential suitability as a candidate site. This is administration policy and is the alternative preferred by the DOE. (4) Delay the WIPP to allow other candidate sites to be evaluated for TRU-waste disposal. This environmental impactstatement is arranged in the following manner: Chapter 1 is an overall summary of the analysis contained in the document. Chapters 2 and 4 set forth the objectives of the national waste-management program and analyze the full spectrum of reasonable alternatives for meeting these objectives, including the WIPP. Chapter 5 presents the interim waste-acceptance criteria and waste-form alternatives for the WIPP. Chapters 6 through 13 provide a detailed description and environmental analysis of the WIPP repository and its site. Chapter 14 describes the permits and approvals necessary for the WIPP and the interactions that have taken place with Federal, State, and local authorities, and with the general public in connection with the repository. Chapter 15 analyzes the many comments received on the DEIS and tells what has been done in this FEIS in response. The appendices contain data and discussions in support of the material in the text.

The Western Area Power Administration's Central Valley Project transmission system forms an integral part of the interconnected Sacramento area transmission grid. Western is contractually responsible to oversee that the system is operated in accordance with strict reliability standards. Growth in the greater Sacramento, California area and power imported from generation outside the region, have increased the demand on the interconnected electric transmission system, leading to transmission system overloads and reducing the reliability and security of the area power system. Western has prepared this Sacramento Area Voltage Support (SVS) Draft Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) in compliance with Federal laws, regulations and guidelines, principally the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This Draft EIS evaluates the potential environmental effects of physical improvements to the area's power system. Enhancements are needed to improve system reliability and provide voltage support for the Sacramento area. The results of public scoping meetings, workshops, meetings with agencies, and earlier studies by Western and area utilities helped to develop a range of alternatives for analysis. The Proposed Action involves: (1) Constructing a new double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line paralleling the existing double-circuit, 230-kV line from the O'Banion Substation to the Elverta Substation; (2) Realigning a portion of the existing Cottonwood-Roseville single-circuit, 230-kV transmission line north of Elverta Substation; and (3) Reconductoring the existing double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line from the Elverta Substation to the Tracy Substation. Public Hearings on the Draft EIS will be held between December 9-12, 2002. Comments on this Draft EIS are encouraged and should be sent to Ms. Loreen McMahon (above). Comments must be received by December 30, 2002.

The Western Area Power Administration's Central Valley Project transmission system forms an integral part of the interconnected Sacramento area transmission grid. Western is contractually responsible to oversee that the system is operated in accordance with strict reliability standards. Growth in the greater Sacramento, California area and power imported from generation outside the region, have increased the demand on the interconnected electric transmission system, leading to transmission system overloads and reducing the reliability and security of the area power system. Western has prepared this Sacramento Area Voltage Support (SVS) Draft Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) in compliance with Federal laws, regulations and guidelines, principally the ''National Environmental Policy Act'' (NEPA). This Draft EIS evaluates the potential environmental effects of physical improvements to the area's power system. Enhancements are needed to improve system reliability and provide voltage support for the Sacramento area. The results of public scoping meetings, workshops, meetings with agencies, and earlier studies by Western and area utilities helped to develop a range of alternatives for analysis. The Proposed Action involves: Constructing a new double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line paralleling the existing double-circuit, 230-kV line from the O'Banion Substation to the Elverta Substation; Realigning a portion of the existing Cottonwood-Roseville single-circuit, 230-kV transmission line north of Elverta Substation; and Reconductoring the existing double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line from the Elverta Substation to the Tracy Substation. Public Hearings on the Draft EIS will be held between December 9-12, 2002. Comments on this Draft EIS are encouraged and should be sent to Ms. Loreen McMahon (above). Comments must be received by December 30, 2002.

BP West Coast Products, LLC (BP or the Applicant) proposes to construct and operate a nominal 720-megawatt (MW), natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle cogeneration facility next to the existing BP Cherry Point Refinery in Whatcom County, Washington. The Applicant also owns and operates the refinery, but the cogeneration facility and the refinery would be operated as separate business units. The cogeneration facility and its ancillary infrastructure would provide steam and 85 MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. The proposed cogeneration facility would be located between Ferndale and Blaine in northwestern Whatcom County, Washington. The Canadian border is approximately 8 miles north of the proposed project site. The Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) has jurisdiction over the evaluation of major energy facilities including the proposed project. As such, EFSEC will recommend approval or denial of the proposed cogeneration facility to the governor of Washington after an environmental review. On June 3, 2002, the Applicant filed an Application for Site Certification (ASC No. 2002-01) with EFSEC in accordance with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 463-42. On April 22, 2003, the Applicant submitted an amended ASC that included, among other things, a change from air to water cooling. With the submission of the ASC and in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (WAC 463-47), EFSEC is evaluating the siting of the proposed project and conducting an environmental review with this Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS). Because the proposed project requires federal agency approvals and permits, this EIS is intended to meet the requirements under both SEPA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) also will use this EIS as part of their respective decision-making processes associated with the Applicant's request to interconnect to Bonneville's transmission system and proposed location of the project within wetland areas. Therefore, this Draft EIS serves as the environmental review document for SEPA and for NEPA as required by Bonneville for the interconnection and the Corps for its 404 individual permit. The EIS addresses direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project, and potential mitigation measures proposed by the Applicant, as well as measures recommended by EFSEC. The information and resulting analysis presented in this Draft EIS are based primarily on information provided by the Applicant in the ASC No. 2002-01 (BP 2002). Where additional information was used to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the proposed action, that information has been referenced. EFSEC's environmental consultant, Shapiro and Associates, Inc., did not perform additional studies during the preparation of this Draft EIS.

This Final Environmental ImpactStatement and Environmental Impact Report (Final EIS/EIR) has been prepared to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Proposed Action includes the construction, operation, and decommissioning of a 48 megawatt (gross) geothermal power plant with ancillary facilities (10-12 production well pads and 3-5 injection well pads, production and injection pipelines), access roads, and a 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line in the Modoc National Forest in Siskiyou County, California. Alternative locations for the power plant site within a reasonable distance of the middle of the wellfield were determined to be technically feasible. Three power plant site alternatives are evaluated in the Final EIS/EIR.

On July 23,2002, the President of the United States signed into law a joint resolution of the United States Congress designating the Yucca Mountain site in Nye County, Nevada, for development as a geologic repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. If the US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorizes construction of the repository and receipt and possession of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive at Yucca Mountain, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) would be responsible for transporting these materials to the Yucca Mountain repository as part of its obligation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Part of the site recommendation decision included the analysis of a nation-wide shipping campaign to the proposed repository site. The ''Final Environmental ImpactStatement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada'' (February 2002) (Repository EIS) evaluated the potential impacts of the transportation of 70,000 Metric Tons of Heavy Metal spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from 77 locations around the nation to the potential repository in Nevada over a 24 year shipping campaign. In the Repository EIS, DOE identified mostly rail as its preferred mode of transportation, both nationally and in the State of Nevada. In December 2003, based on public comments and the environmental analyses in the Repository EIS, DOE identified a preference for the Caliente rail corridor in Nevada. On April 8, 2004, DOE issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on the Mode of Transportation and Nevada Rail Corridor for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. In this ROD, the DOE announced that it had decided to select the mostly rail scenario analyzed in the Repository EIS as the transportation mode both on a national basis and in the State of Nevada. Under the mostly rail scenario, the DOE would rely on a combination of rail, truck and possibly barge to transport to the repository site at Yucca Mountain up to 70,000 MTHM of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, with most of the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste being transported by rail. This will ultimately require construction of a rail line in Nevada to the repository. In addition, the DOE has decided to select the Caliente rail corridor in which to examine potential alignments within which to construct that rail line. A corridor is a strip of land, approximately 400 meters (0.25 miles) wide, that encompasses one of several possible routes through which DOE could build a rail line. An alignment is the specific location of a rail line in a corridor, and would likely be 60 meters [200 feet] or less in width. Also on April 8, 2004, DOE issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental ImpactStatement for the Alignment, Construction, and Operation of a Rail Line to a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, NV. In the Notice of Intent, the Department announced its intent to prepare a Rail Alignment EIS to assist in selecting a possible alignment for construction of a rail line that would connect the repository at Yucca Mountain to an existing main rail line in Nevada. The Rail Alignment EIS also would consider the potential construction and operation of a rail-to-truck intermodal transfer facility, proposed to be located at the confluence of an existing mainline railroad and a highway, to support legal-weight truck transportation until the rail system is fully operational. This corridor is approximately 513 kilometers (319 miles) long and would cost an estimated $880 million (2001 dollars). Should DOE decide to build the Caliente corridor, it may be the longest rail line built in the United States since the Transcontinental Railroad was constructed in 1869. Some of the challenges in building this rail corridor are steep grades (the corridor crosses over 7 mountain ranges), isolated terrain, possible tunnels, and stakeholder acceptance.

This Complex Transformation Supplemental Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement (SPEIS) analyzes the potential environmental impacts of reasonable alternatives to continue transformation of the nuclear weapons complex to be smaller, and more responsive, efficient, and secure in order to meet national security requirements.

This document is the final environmental impactstatement and final environmental impact report (FEIS/R) on the proposal by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) to complete the electrification of the Northeast Corridor main line by extending electric traction from New Haven, CT, to Boston, MA. This document (Volume I) is the main body of the FEIS/R and includes a 4(f) Statement on the proposed location of an electrification facility in the Great Swamp Wildlife Management Area.

The Department of Energy (DOE), Albuquerque Operations Office, has prepared a Supplemental Analysis (SA) to determine if the Site-Wide Environmental ImpactStatement for Continued Operations of Los Alamos National Laboratory (SWEIS) adequately addresses the environmental effects of a proposal for modifying current methods utilized to receive and manage certain offsite unwanted radioactive sealed sources at Los Alamos National Laboratory or if additional documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is needed.

WASHINGTON – The Department of Energy has prepared a Final Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental ImpactStatement to analyze the potential environmental, human health, and socioeconomic impacts of elemental mercury storage at seven locations

Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) and Supplemental Environmental Impactstatement (EIS for the management and disposal of dredged material for the Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana project. The actions and strategies set forth in the DMMP/SEIS provides for the management of material dredged through operations

Sciences: Launching New Technology in the MarketplaceNEED IMPACTSTATEMENT INITIATIVE Over the last and new machine tool builders. To date, M4 Sciences has sold drilling systems in 12 major market countries two decades, the Purdue Center for Materials Processing and Technology (CMPT) (originally part

This document is the Comments and Responses to Comments volume of the Final Environmental ImpactStatement and Environmental Impact Report prepared for the proposed Telephone Flat Geothermal Development Project (Final EIS/EIR). This volume of the Final EIS/EIR provides copies of the written comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR and the leady agency responses to those comments in conformance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

This document presents two versions of the outline for the environmental impactstatements (EISS) to be prepared for the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project. The first displays the basic structure of the statements; it lists only the titles of sections. The second is a guide to the contents of the statements which provides, under each title, a brief summary of contents. The outline is intended to comply with the planning requirements and the definitions of terms established by the Council on Environmental Quality as well as DOE Order 5440.lB (Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act), and compliance with Floodplain/Wetlands Environmental Review Requirements. These requirements and definitions are implicity part of the outline. The outline presented in this document will guide the preparation of EISs Guidelines for preparation of environmental assessments for the UMTRA Project are available.

In regard to the proposed Tenaska Washington II Generation Project, the goal of the Bonneville Power Administration`s (BPA) Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) public involvement process is to determine the issues to be examined and pertinent analyses to be conducted and to solicit comments on the content and quality of information presented in the Draft Environmental ImpactStatement (DEIS). Comments and questions are solicited from the public and government agencies during the scoping process and during the comment period and public hearing on the DEIS, to find out what is of most concern to them. The end product of the public involvement process is the Comment Report which follows in part of this volume on Public Involvement.

The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management prepared this statement to update the environmental record established during preparation of DOE/EIS-0026, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, by evaluating the environmental impacts associated with new information, new circumstances, and modifications to the actions evaluated in DOE/EIS-0026 that were proposed in light of the new information.

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed off Energy.gov. Are you0andEnergyGlobalEnergy 2014:514:Impact

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed off Energy.gov. Are you0andEnergyGlobalEnergy 2014:514:Impact5:503: New EnglandDepartment6:

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2: Final Environmental Assessment376:Environmental ImpactEnergyNotice of

Abstract: The proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) Program, which is part of the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative, is intended to support a safe, secure, and sustainable expansion of nuclear energy, both domestically and internationally. Domestically, the GNEP Program would promote technologies that support economic, sustained production of nuclear-generated electricity, while reducing the impacts associated with spent nuclear fuel disposal and reducing proliferation risks. The Department of Energy (DOE) proposed action envisions changing the United States nuclear energy fuel cycle from an open (or once-through) fuel cycle—in which nuclear fuel is used in a power plant one time and the resulting spent nuclear fuel is stored for eventual disposal in a geologic repository—to a closed fuel cycle in which spent nuclear fuel would be recycled to recover energy-bearing components for use in new nuclear fuel. At this time, DOE has no specific proposed actions for the international component of the GNEP Program. Rather, the United States, through the GNEP Program, is considering various initiatives to work cooperatively with other nations. Such initiatives include the development of grid-appropriate reactors and the development of reliable fuel services (to provide an assured supply of fresh nuclear fuel and assist with the management of the used fuel) for nations who agree to employ nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes, such as electricity generation.

Bonneville Power Administration, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Nez Perce Tribe propose a supplementation program to restore chinook salmon to the Clearwater River Subbasin in Idaho. The Clearwater River is a tributary to the Snake River, which empties into the Columbia River. The Nez Perce Tribe would build and operate two central incubation and rearing hatcheries and six satellite facilities. Spring, summer and fall chinook salmon would be reared and acclimated to different areas in the Subbasin and released at the hatchery and satellite sites or in other watercourses throughout the Subbasin. The supplementation program differs from other hatchery programs because the fish would be released at different sizes and would return to reproduce naturally in the areas where they are released. Several environmental issues were identified during scoping: the possibility that the project would fail if mainstem Columbia River juvenile and adult passage problems are not solved; genetic risks to fish listed as endangered or threatened; potential impacts to wild and resident fish stocks because of increase competition for food and space; and water quality. The Proposed Action would affect several important aspects of Nez Perce tribal life, primarily salmon harvest, employment, and fisheries management.

This research demonstrates that Suspended Particle Device (SPD) film is a viable option for the development of large-scale transparent display systems. The thesis analyzes the SPD film from an architectural display application ...

BPA proposes to fund several fishery-related activities in the Yakima River Basin. The Yakima Fisheries Project (YFP), included in the Northwest Power Planning Council`s fish and wildlife program, would be jointly managed by the State of Washington and the Yakima Indian Nation. Fisheries resources in the Yakima River are severely reduced from historical levels and there is a significant potential for enhancement of these resources. BPA`s proposed action is to fund (1) information gathering on the implementation of supplementation techniques and on feasibility of reintroducing coho salmon in an environment where native populations have become extinct; (2) research activities based on continuous assessment, feedback and improvement of research design and activities ({open_quotes}adaptive management{close_quotes}); and (3) the construction, operation, and maintenance of facilities for supplementing populations of upper Yakima spring chinook salmon. The project has been considerably revised from the original proposal described in the first draft EIS. Examined in addition to No Action (which would leave present anadromous fisheries resources unchanged in the, Basin) are two alternatives for action: (1) supplementation of depressed natural populations of upper Yakima spring chinook and (2) that same supplementation plus a study to determine the feasibility of re-establishing (via stock imported from another basin) naturally spawning population and a significant fall fishery for coho in the Yakima Basin. Alternative 2 has been identified as the preferred action. Major issues examined in the Revised Draft EIS include potential impacts of the project on genetic and ecological resources of existing fish populations, on water quality and quantity, on threatened and endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act, and on the recreational fishery.

BPA is considering whether to transfer (wheel) electrical power from a proposed privately-owned, combustion-turbine electrical generation plant in Oregon. The plant would be fired by natural gas and would use combined-cycle technology to generate up to 440 average megawatts (aMW) of energy. The plant would be developed, owned, and operated by Portland General Electric Company (PGE). The project would be built in eastern Oregon, just east of the City of Boardman in Morrow County. The proposed plant would be built on a site within the Port of Morrow Industrial Park. The proposed use for the site is consistent with the County land use plan. Building the transmission line needed to interconnect the power plant to BPA`s transmission system would require a variance from Morrow County. BPA would transfer power from the plant to its McNary-Slatt 500-kV transmission line. PGE would pay BPA for wheeling services. Key environmental concerns identified in the scoping process and evaluated in the draft Environmental ImpactStatement (DEIS) include these potential impacts: (1) air quality impacts, such as emissions and their contributions to the {open_quotes}greenhouse{close_quotes} effect; (2) health and safety impacts, such as effects of electric and magnetic fields, (3) noise impacts, (4) farmland impacts, (5) water vapor impacts to transportation, (6) economic development and employment impacts, (7) visual impacts, (8) consistency with local comprehensive plans, and (9) water quality and supply impacts, such as the amount of wastewater discharged, and the source and amount of water required to operate the plant. These and other issues are discussed in the DEIS. The proposed project includes features designed to reduce environmental impacts. Based on studies completed for the DEIS, adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed project were identified, and no evidence emerged to suggest that the proposed action is controversial.

The Columbia River System is a vast and complex combination of Federal and non-Federal facilities used for many purposes including power production, irrigation, navigation, flood control, recreation, fish and wildlife habitat and municipal and industrial water supply. Each river use competes for the limited water resources in the Columbia River Basin. This technical appendix addresses only the effects of alternative system operating strategies for managing the Columbia River system. The environmental impactstatement (EIS) itself and some of the other appendices present analyses of the alternative approaches to the other three decisions considered as part of the SOR. This document is the product of the Wildlife Work Group, focusing on wildlife impacts but not including fishes. Topics covered include the following: scope and process; existing and affected environment, including specific discussion of 18 projects in the Columbia river basin. Analysis, evaluation, and alternatives are presented for all projects. System wide impacts to wildlife are also included.

This volume of the Initial Northwest Power Act Power Sales Contracts Final Environmental ImpactStatement (Final EIS) contains public comments addressing the Initial Northwest Power Act Power Sales Contracts Draft EIS, August 1990 and Bonneville Power Administration`s (BPA) responses. The Introduction provides information about the process BPA follows in addressing these comments. Part I contains a listing of the Alternative Actions evaluated in the Final EIS; Part II is organized by Alternatives and includes summaries of the comments and BPA responses; Part III provides copies of the original comments letters, and, for ease of identification, are coded in the margins according to the alternative(s) addressed.

This document summarizes the U.S. Department of Energy's ''Draft Environmental ImpactStatement for the Treatment and Management of Sodium-Bonded Spent Nuclear Fuel''. In addition to information concerning the background, purpose and need for the proposed action, and the National Environmental Policy Act process, this summary describes the characteristics of sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel, the proposed treatment methods, the proposed facilities, the alternatives considered, and the environmental consequences of these alternatives. A glossary is included at the end to assist the reader with some of the technical terms used in this document.

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2: Final Environmental Assessment376:Environmental ImpactStatementRecord of

This EIS analyzes the significant environmental impacts that could occur if various technologies for management and disposal of high-level and transuranic wastes from commercial nuclear power reactors were to be developed and implemented. This EIS will serve as the environmental input for the decision on which technology, or technologies, will be emphasized in further research and development activities in the commercial waste management program. The action proposed in this EIS is to (1) adopt a national strategy to develop mined geologic repositories for disposal of commercially generated high-level and transuranic radioactive waste (while continuing to examine subseabed and very deep hole disposal as potential backup technologies) and (2) conduct a R and D program to develop such facilities and the necessary technology to ensure the safe long-term containment and isolation of these wastes. The Department has considered in this statement: development of conventionally mined deep geologic repositories for disposal of spent fuel from nuclear power reactors and/or radioactive fuel reprocessing wastes; balanced development of several alternative disposal methods; and no waste disposal action. This EIS reflects the public review of and comments offered on the draft statement. Included are descriptions of the characteristics of nuclear waste, the alternative disposal methods under consideration, and potential environmental impacts and costs of implementing these methods. Because of the programmatic nature of this document and the preliminary nature of certain design elements assumed in assessing the environmental consequences of the various alternatives, this study has been based on generic, rather than specific, systems. At such time as specific facilities are identified for particular sites, statements addressing site-specific aspects will be prepared for public review and comment.

United States. Bonneville Power Administration; Klickitat County (Wash.)

1995-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

This Draft Environmental ImpactStatement (DEIS) addresses the Columbia Wind Farm {number_sign}1 (Project) proposal for construction and operation of a 25 megawatt (MW) wind power project in the Columbia Hills area southeast of Goldendale in Klickitat County, Washington. The Project would be constructed on private land by Conservation and Renewable Energy System (CARES) (the Applicant). An Environmental ImpactStatement is required under both NEPA and SEPA guidelines and is issued under Section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq and under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) as provided by RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c). Bonneville Power Administration is the NEPA lead agency; Klickitat County is the nominal SEPA lead agency and CARES is the SEPA co-lead agency for this DEIS. The Project site is approximately 395 hectares (975 acres) in size. The Proposed Action would include approximately 91 model AWT-26 wind turbines. Under the No Action Alternative, the Project would not be constructed and existing grazing and agricultural activities on the site would continue.

The Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management is developing the Yucca Mountain repository for the disposition of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high level radioactive waste (HLW). Part of that development is the transportation infrastructure needed to ship SNF and HLW from 77 sites around the country to the repository. A Record of Decision was issued in 2004 to use mostly rail as the mode of transport both nationally, and in the State of Nevada. No rail access exists to the Yucca Mountain site, so a Rail Alignment Environmental ImpactStatement (RA-EIS) is being prepared to address the impacts associated with connecting existing track in Nevada to Yucca Mountain. Late in the preparation of the Draft RA-EIS, an option to consider an additional alignment alternative was introduced. This paper describes the consideration given to the new alternative and describes how it is being incorporated into the RA-EIS. (authors)

A review of accident analyses in recent US Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental ImpactStatements (EISs) was conducted to evaluate the consistency among approaches and to compare these approaches with existing DOE guidance. The review considered several components of an accident analysis: the overall scope, which in turn should reflect the scope of the EIS; the spectrum of accidents considered; the methods and assumptions used to determine frequencies or frequency ranges for the accident sequences; and the assumption and technical bases for developing radiological and chemical atmospheric source terms and for calculating the consequences of airborne releases. The review also considered the range of results generated with respect to impacts on various worker and general populations. In this paper, the findings of these reviews are presented and methods recommended for improving consistency among EISs and bringing them more into line with existing DOE guidance.

Bonneville is responsible for maintaining a network of 24,000 kilometers (km) or 15,000 miles (mi.) of electric transmission lines and 350 substations in a region of diverse vegetation. This vegetation can interfere with electric power flow, pose safety problems for us and the public, and interfere with our ability to maintain these facilities. We need to (1) keep vegetation away from our electric facilities; (2) increase our program efficiency and consistency; (3) review herbicide use (under increased public scrutiny); and (4) maximize the range of tools we can use while minimizing environmental impact (Integrated Vegetation Management). This Final Environmental ImpactStatement (FEIS) establishes Planning Steps for managing vegetation for specific projects (to be tiered to this Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS)). In addition to No Action (current practice), alternatives are presented for Rights-of-way, Electric Yards, and Non-electric Facilities (landscaping, work yards). Four vegetation control methods are analyzed manual, mechanical, herbicide, and biological. Also evaluated are 23 herbicide active ingredients and 4 herbicide application techniques (spot, localized, broadcast, and aerial). For rights-of-way, we consider three sets of alternatives: alternative management approaches (time-driven or establishing low-growing plant communities); alternative method packages; and, if herbicides are in a methods package, alternative vegetation selections (noxious weeds, deciduous, or any vegetation). For electric yards, one herbicide-use alternative is considered. For non-electric facilities, two method package alternatives are considered. For rights-of-way, the environmentally preferred alternative(s) would use manual, mechanical, and biological control methods, as well as spot and localized herbicide applications for noxious and deciduous plant species; the BPA-preferred alternative(s) would add broadcast and aerial herbicide applications, and would use herbicides on any vegetation. Both would favor a management approach that fosters low-growing plant communities.

In 1990, Congress appropriated $5 million (Pu 101-514) for the State of Hawaii to use in Phase 3 of the Hawaii Geothermal Project (HGP). As defined by the State in its 1990 proposal to Congress, the HGP would consist of four phases: (1) exploration and testing of the geothermal resource associated with the Kilauea Volcano on the Island of Hawaii (the Big Island), (2) demonstration of deep-water power transmission cable technology in the Alenuihaha Channel between the Big Island and Maui, (3) verification and characterization of the geothermal resource on the Big Island, and (4) construction and operation of commercial geothermal power production facilities on the Big Island, with overland and submarine transmission of electricity from the Big Island to Oahu and possibly other islands (DBED 1990). Because it considered Phase 3 to be research and not project development or construction, Congress indicated that allocation of this funding would not be considered a major federal action under NEPA and would not require an EIS. However, because the project is highly visible, somewhat controversial, and involves a particularly sensitive environment in Hawaii, Congress directed in 1991 (House Resolution 1281) that ''...the Secretary of Energy shall use such sums as are necessary from amounts previously provided to the State of Hawaii for geothermal resource verification and characterization to conduct the necessary environmental assessments and/or environmental impactstatement (EIS) for the geothermal initiative to proceed''. In addition, the U.S. District Court of Hawaii (Civil No. 90-00407, June 25, 1991) ruled that the federal government must prepare an EIS for Phases 3 and 4 before any further disbursement of funds was made to the State for the HGP. This Project Management Plan (PMP) briefly summarizes the background information on the HGP and describes the project management structure, work breakdown structure, baseline budget and schedule, and reporting procedures that have been established for the project. The PMP does not address in detail the work that has been completed during the scoping process and preparation of the IP. The PMP has been developed to address the tasks required in preparing the Draft Environmental ImpactStatement (DEIS), the public comment period, and the Final Environmental ImpactStatement (FEIS).

This document is the final environmental impactstatement and final environmental impact report (FEIS/R) on the proposal by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) to complete the electrification of the Northeast Corridor main line by extending electric traction from New Haven, CT, to Boston, MA. This document (Volume III) of the FEIS/R presents summaries of comments received on the DEIS/R and responses to these comments.

The proposed DOE action described in this environmental impactstatement (EIS) is to implement appropriate processes for the safe and efficient management of spent nuclear fuel and targets assigned to the Savannah River Site (SRS), including placing these materials in forms suitable for ultimate disposition. Options to treat, package, and store this material are discussed. The material included in this EIS consists of approximately 68 metric tons heavy metal (MTHM) of spent nuclear fuel (20 MTHM of aluminum-based spent nuclear fuel at SRS, as much as 28 MTHM of aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel from foreign and domestic research reactors to be shipped to SRS through 2035, and 20 MTHM of stainless-steel or zirconium-clad spent nuclear fuel and some programmatic material stored at SRS for repackaging and dry storage pending shipment offsite).

The Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental ImpactStatement (HSW EIS) provides environmental and technical information concerning U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposed waste management practices at the Hanford Site. The HSW EIS covers four primary aspects of waste management at Hanford – waste treatment, storage, transportation, and disposal. It also addresses four kinds of solid radioactive waste – low-level waste (LLW), mixed (radioactive and chemically hazardous) low-level waste (MLLW), transuranic (TRU) waste (including mixed TRUW), and immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW) from treatment of Hanford’s tanks waste. The HSW EIS is intended to help DOE determine what specific Hanford Site facilities will continue to be used, will be modified, or need to be constructed to treat, store, and dispose of these wastes.

This Final ''Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental ImpactStatement'' (HCP EIS) is being used by the Department of Energy (DOE) and its nine cooperating and consulting agencies to develop a comprehensive land-use plan (CLUP) for the Hanford Site. The DOE will use the Final HCP EIS as a basis for a Record of Decision (ROD) on a CLUP for the Hanford Site. While development of the CLUP will be complete with release of the HCP EIS ROD, full implementation of the CLUP is expected to take at least 50 years. Implementation of the CLUP would begin a more detailed planning process for land-use and facility-use decisions at the Hanford Site. The DOE would use the CLUP to screen proposals. Eventually, management of Hanford Site areas would move toward the CLUP land-use goals. This CLUP process could take more than 50 years to fully achieve the land-use goals.

Public comments are sought on this final SEIS, which supplements the 1992 Columbia River Salmon Flow Measures Options Analysis (OA)/Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS). The Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with the Bonneville Power Administration and the Bureau of Reclamation proposes five alternatives to improve flows of water in the lower Columbia-Snake rivers in 1993 and future years to assist the migration of juvenile and adult anadromous fish past eight hydropower dams. These are: (1) Without Project (no action) Alternative, (2) the 1992 Operation, (3) the 1992 Operation with Libby/Hungry Horse Sensitivity, (4) a Modified 1992 Operation with Improvements to Salmon Flows from Dworshak, and (5) a Modified 1992 Operation with Upper Snake Sensitivity. Alternative 4, Modified 1992 Operations, has been identified as the preferred alternative.

Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, which implement the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, and the US Department of Energy National Environmental Policy Act regulations, the Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, is issuing a Record of Decision on the continued operation of Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1, Kern County, California. The Department of Energy has decided to continue current operations at Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 and implement additional well drilling, facility development projects and other activities necessary for continued production of Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 in accordance with the requirements of the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976. The final Supplemental Environmental ImpactStatement, entitled ``Petroleum Production at Maximum Efficient Rate, Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 (Elk Hills), Kern County, California (DOE/SEIS-0158),`` was released on September 3, 1993.

This summary covers the major points of the Draft Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) prepared for the BPA Schultz-Hanford Transmission Project proposed by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). The project involves constructing a new 500-kilovolt (kV) line in central Washington, north of Hanford. The new line would connect to an existing line at the Schultz Substation near Ellensburg and to a new or existing substation in the Hanford area (see Map 2 in EIS). The project may also involve constructing a new substation to accommodate the new transmission line. As a federal agency, BPA is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to take into account potential environmental consequences of its proposal and take action to protect, restore, and enhance the environment during and after construction. Preparation of this EIS assists in meeting those requirements.

DOE's NNSA is responsible for the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, including production readiness required to maintain that stockpile. Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NNSA has prepared a Supplement to the Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement on: (1) whether to proceed with a Modern Pit Facility (MPF); and (2) if so, where to locate a MPF.

Puget Sound Hatcheries Draft EIS S-1 July 2014 Draft Environmental ImpactStatement on Two Joint State and Tribal Resource Management Plans for Puget Sound Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery Programs Introduction Salmon and steelhead have been produced in Puget Sound hatcheries since the late 1800s

The U.S. Department of Energy developed this statement, the supplement to DOE/EIS-0158, to analyze the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the sale of Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 in Kern County, California to Occidental Petroleum Corporation.

On December 21, 2012, DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare an Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) for the Plains & Eastern Clean Line Transmission Project on behalf of the Department and Southwestern Power Administration

Columbia River System Operations Review (U.S.); United States. Bonneville Power Administration; United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. North Pacific Division; United States. Bureau of Reclamation. Pacific Northwest Region.

1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

Since the 1930`s, the Columbia River has been harnessed for the benefit of the Northwest and the nation. Federal agencies have built 30 major dams on the river and its tributaries. Dozens of non-Federal projects have been developed as well. The dams provide flood control, irrigation, navigation, hydro-electric power generation, recreation, fish and wildlife, and streamflows for wildlife, anadromous fish, resident fish, and water quality. This is Appendix F of the Environmental ImpactStatement for the Columbia River System, focusing on irrigation issues and concerns arrising from the Irrigation and Mitigation of impacts (M&I) working Group of the SOR process. Major subheadings include the following: Scope and process of irrigation/M&I studies; Irrigation/M&I in the Columbia Basin Today including overview, irrigated acreage and water rights, Irrigation and M&I issues basin-wide and at specific locations; and the analysis of impacts and alternative for the Environmental ImpactStatement.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) has produced large quantities of radioactive and hazardous waste during years of nuclear weapons production. As a result, a large number of sites across the DOE Complex have become chemically and/or radiologically contaminated. In 1990, the Secretary of Energy charged the DOE Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste management (EM) with the task of preparing a Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement (PEIS). The PEIS should identify and assess the potential environmental impacts of implementing several integrated Environmental Restoration (ER) and Waste Management (WM) alternatives. The determination and integration of appropriate remediation activities and sound waste management practices is vital for ensuring the diminution of adverse human health impacts during site cleanup and waste management programs. This report documents the PEIS risk assessment methodology used to evaluate human health risks posed by WM activities. The methodology presents a programmatic cradle to grave risk assessment for EM program activities. A unit dose approach is used to estimate risks posed by WM activities and is the subject of this document.

The proposed DOE action considered in this environmental impactstatement (EIS) is to implement appropriate processes for the safe and efficient management of spent nuclear fuel and targets at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in Aiken County, South Carolina, including placing these materials in forms suitable for ultimate disposition. Options to treat, package, and store this material are discussed. The material included in this EIS consists of approximately 68 metric tons heavy metal (MTHM) of spent nuclear fuel 20 MTHM of aluminum-based spent nuclear fuel at SRS, as much as 28 MTHM of aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel from foreign and domestic research reactors to be shipped to SRS through 2035, and 20 MTHM of stainless-steel or zirconium-clad spent nuclear fuel and some Americium/Curium Targets stored at SRS. Alternatives considered in this EIS encompass a range of new packaging, new processing, and conventional processing technologies, as well as the No Action Alternative. A preferred alternative is identified in which DOE would prepare about 97% by volume (about 60% by mass) of the aluminum-based fuel for disposition using a melt and dilute treatment process. The remaining 3% by volume (about 40% by mass) would be managed using chemical separation. Impacts are assessed primarily in the areas of water resources, air resources, public and worker health, waste management, socioeconomic, and cumulative impacts.

The purpose of the ''Final West Valley Demonstration Project Waste Management Environmental ImpactStatement'' is to provide information on the environmental impacts of the Department of Energy's proposed action to ship radioactive wastes that are either currently in storage, or that will be generated from operations over the next 10 years, to offsite disposal locations, and to continue its ongoing onsite waste management activities. Decommissioning or long-term stewardship decisions will be reached based on a separate EIS that is being prepared for that decisionmaking. This EIS evaluates the environmental consequences that may result from actions to implement the proposed action, including the impacts to the onsite workers and the offsite public from waste transportation and onsite waste management. The EIS analyzes a no action alternative, under which most wastes would continue to be stored onsite over the next 10 years. It also analyzes an alternative under which certain wastes would be shipped to interim offsite storage locations prior to disposal. The Department's preferred alternative is to ship wastes to offsite disposal locations.

This Appendix C of the Final Environmental ImpactStatement for the Columbia River System discusses impacts on andromous fish and juvenile fish transportation. The principal andromous fish in the Columbia basin include salmonid species (Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon, and steelhead) and nonsalmoinid andromous species (sturgeon, lamprey, and shad). Major sections in this document include the following: background, scope and process; affected environment for salmon and steelhead, shaded, lamprey, sturgeon; study methods; description of alternatives: qualitative and quantitative findings.

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has statutory responsibilities to supply electrical power to its utility, industrial, and other customers in the Pacific Northwest. In 1990, to cover the outer range of potential load growth with new resources, BPA embarked upon the Resource Contingency Program (RCP). Instead of buying or building generating plants now, BPA has purchased options to acquire power later, if and when it is needed. The decision to acquire any of these option energy projects to fulfill statutory supply obligations will be influenced by Federal system load growth, the outcome of BPA`s Business Plan, required operational changes in Columbia-Snake River Hydroelectric facilities, and the loss of major generating resources. In September 1993, three option development agreements were signed with three proposed natural gas-fired, combined cycle combustion turbine CT projects near Chehalis and Satsop, Washington, and near Hermiston, Oregon. Together these three projects could supply BPA with 1,090 average megawatts (aMW) of power. Under these agreements, sponsors are obtaining permits and conducting project design work, and BPA is completing this EIS process. In September 1993, BPA published a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impactstatement (EIS) on these three proposed gas-fired combustion turbine projects and held public scoping meetings in October 1993 at each site. In February 1994, BPA released an Implementation Plan on the proposed scope of the EIS. A draft EIS on the three proposed projects was published in February 1995. The impacts of the Chehalis and Satsop projects located in Washington State will be covered in one EIS document, while the impacts of the Hermiston project located in Oregon are covered in this final EIS document. It is BPA`s intent to continue to base the analysis of impacts on the assumption that all three projects may be constructed at some point in the future.

Washington Water Power (WWP) proposes to construct and operate an electric transmission line that would connect with the electrical system of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (B.C. Hydro). The project would be composed of a double-circuit, 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line from WWP`s existing Beacon Substation located northeast of Spokane, Washington to the international border located northwest of Metaline Falls, Washington. The original Presidential permit application and associated proposed route presented in the draft environmental impactstatement (DEIS) have been modified to terminate at the Beacon Substation, instead of WWP`s initially proposed termination point at the planned Marshall Substation located southwest of Spokane. A supplemental draft EIS was prepared and submitted for review to not only examine the new proposed 5.6 miles of route, but to also compare the new Proposed Route to the other alternatives previously analyzed in the DEIS. This final EIS (FEIS) assesses the environmental effects of the proposed transmission line through construction, operation, maintenance, and abandonment activities and addresses the impacts associated with the Proposed Action, Eastern Alternative, Western Alternative, Northern Crossover Alternative, Southern Crossover Alternative, and No Action Alternative. The FEIS also contains the comments received and the responses to these comments submitted on the DEIS and Supplemental DEIS.

This ''Revised Draft Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental ImpactStatement'' (HSW EIS) covers three primary aspects of waste management at Hanford--waste treatment, storage, and disposal. It also addresses four kinds of solid waste--low-level waste (LLW), mixed (radioactive and chemically hazardous) low-level waste (MLLW), transuranic (TRU) waste, and immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW). It fundamentally asks the question: how should we manage the waste we have now and will have in the future? This EIS analyzes the impacts of the LLW, MLLW, TRU waste, and ILAW we currently have in storage, will generate, or expect to receive at Hanford. The HSW EIS is intended to help us determine what specific facilities we will continue to use, modify, or construct to treat, store, and dispose of these wastes (Figure S.1). Because radioactive and chemically hazardous waste management is a complex, technical, and difficult subject, we have made every effort to minimize the use of acronyms (making an exception for our four waste types listed above), use more commonly understood words, and provide the ''big picture'' in this summary. An acronym list, glossary of terms, and conversions for units of measure are provided in a readers guide in Volume 1 of this EIS.

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and Puget Sound Power & Light Company (Puget Power) propose to upgrade the existing high-voltage transmission system in the Whatcom and Skagit counties area between the towns of Custer and Sedro Woolley, including some areas within the City of Bellingham, starting in 1995. A Draft Environmental ImpactStatement (DEIS) for the project was issued in November 1993, followed by a 45-day public comment period. Public response to the DEIS included the identification of several new transmission route alternatives in the Lake Whatcom area. BPA issued a Supplemental DEIS in April 1995 to provide a second public review-and-comment period. Rebuilding an existing 230-kV line to a double-circuit 230-kV transmission line was identified in the Supplemental DEIS as the Proposed Action. The Supplemental DEIS also examined in detail a North Shore Road alternative which was proposed by some members of the public. Public comments on the EIS were listed and responded to in the Supplemental DEIS. In May 1995, a second set of open houses and public meetings was held to review the Supplemental DEIS. Electromagnetic field (EMF) effects raised as an issue in the DEIS continued to be an issue of public concern in the meetings. The EIS has identified impacts that would generally be classified as low to moderate and localized. Effects on soils and water resources in sensitive areas (e.g., near Lake Whatcom) would be low to moderate; there would be little change in magnetic fields; noise levels would remain at existing levels; and land use and property value impacts would be minimal. Threatened and endangered species would not be adversely affected, and all proposed actions in wetlands would be covered by a Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit. Visual and socioeconomic would be low to moderate. There would be no effect on cultural resources.

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is proposing to build a new transmission line to accommodate increasing demand for electricity and address reliability concerns in the Puget Sound area. The Proposed Action would construct a new line that would connect to an existing transmission line near the community of Kangley, and then connect with BPA's existing Echo Lake Substation. The major purpose of this proposal is to improve system reliability in the King County area. An outage on an existing line during times of heavy use, such as during a winter cold snap, could cause voltage instability and a loss of power in the King County area. System planners have projected total system load using normal growth in demand and determined that system instability could develop as early as the winter of 2002-03. Besides meeting this need for system reliability, this project would enhance the United States' delivery of power to Canada as required under the Columbia River Treaty of 1961. BPA described and analyzed transmission route alternatives in a draft environmental impactstatement (DEIS) released in June 2001. The DEIS identified a preferred alternative that would parallel an existing BPA transmission line through the Cedar River Municipal Watershed. BPA received over 700 comments from landowners, agencies, tribes and special interest groups on the DEIS. Many of the comments suggested BPA re-evaluate the range of alternatives considered and prepare a supplemental draft environmental impactstatement (SDEIS). After reviewing the comments and refining the cost estimates associated with BPA's preferred alternative, BPA decided to prepare this SDEIS to re-evaluate alternatives not analyzed in detail in the DEIS. The added transmission alternatives, all located outside of the Cedar River Watershed, were initially considered but dropped from detailed analysis. They are identified as Alternatives A, B, C, and D. Alternatives A and C are located to the west of the Cedar River Watershed boundary. Alternatives B and D cross the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests. Under all transmission alternatives, Echo Lake Substation would be expanded about three acres to the east and new equipment to accommodate the new line would be installed. BPA is also considering a Non-Transmission Alternative and the No Action Alternative.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) a separately organized agency within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for providing the Nation with nuclear weapons and ensuring that those nuclear weapons remain safe, secure, and reliable. As one of the DOE major production facilities, the Y-12 National Security Complex has been DOE's primary site for enriched uranium processing and storage, and one of the manufacturing facilities for maintaining the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. In response to the end of the Cold War and changes in the world's political regimes, the emphasis of the U.S. weapons program has shifted dramatically over the past few years from developing and producing new weapons to dismantlement and maintenance of a smaller, enduring stockpile. The ''Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement'' [SSM PEIS], DOE/EIS-0236, issued in September 1996, evaluated alternatives for maintaining the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile without underground nuclear testing or production of new-design weapons. In the SSM PEIS Record of Decision (ROD), DOE decided to maintain the national security missions at the Y-12 National Security Complex, but to downsize Y-12 consistent with reduced requirements. These national security missions include (1) maintaining the capability and capacity to fabricate secondaries, limited life components, and case parts for nuclear response; (2) evaluating components and subsystems returned from the stockpile; (3) storing enriched uranium that is designated for national security purposes; (4) storing depleted uranium and lithium parts; (5) dismantling nuclear weapons secondaries returned from the stockpile; (6) processing uranium and lithium (which includes chemical recovery, purification, and conversion of enriched uranium and lithium to a form suitable for long-term storage and/or further use); and (7) providing support to weapons laboratories. During the same time period as the SSM PEIS, DOE also prepared the ''Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement'' [S&D PEIS], DOE/EIS-0229, which was issued in December 1996. This S&D PEIS evaluated alternatives for the long-term storage of fissile material. In the S&D PEIS ROD, DOE decided that Y-12 would also store surplus enriched uranium pending disposition.

This Supplement Analysis (SA) has been prepared to determine if the ''Site-Wide Environmental ImpactStatement for Continued Operations of Los Alamos National Laboratory'' (SWEIS) adequately addresses the environmental effects of a proposal for modifying current methods utilized to receive and manage certain offsite unwanted radioactive sealed sources at Los Alamos National Laboratory or if additional documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is needed. The need for a SA to an existing environmental impactstatement (EIS) is initiated by subsequent changes in the basis upon which the original EIS was prepared and the need to evaluate whether or not the EIS is adequate in light of those changes. It is submitted according to the requirements for determining the need for supplemental environmental impactstatements (10 CFR 1021.314) in the Department of Energy's regulation for implementing NEPA. This SA specifically compares key impact assessment parameters of a program evaluated in the SWEIS with those of a proposal that would change the approach of this management. It also provides an explanation of any differences between the proposed action and activities described in earlier NEPA analysis.

In October 2002, DOE issued the Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental ImpactStatement (Final EIS) (DOE 2002) that provided an analysis of the potential environmental consequences of alternatives/options for the management and disposition of Sodium Bearing Waste (SBW), High-Level Waste (HL W) calcine, and HLW facilities at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) located at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), now known as the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and referred to hereafter as the Idaho Site. Subsequent to the issuance of the Final EIS, DOE included the requirement for treatment of SBW in the Request for Proposals for Environmental Management activities on the Idaho Site. The new Idaho Cleanup Project (ICP) Contractor identified Steam Reforming as their proposed method to treat SBW; a method analyzed in the Final EIS as an option to treat SBW. The proposed Steam Reforming process for SBW is the same as in the Final EIS for retrieval, treatment process, waste form and transportation for disposal. In addition, DOE has updated the characterization data for both the HLW Calcine (BBWI 2005a) and SBW (BBWI 2004 and BBWI 2005b) and identified two areas where new calculation methods are being used to determine health and safety impacts. Because of those changes, DOE has prepared this supplement analysis to determine whether there are ''substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns'' or ''significant new circumstances or information'' within the meaning of the Council of Environmental Quality and DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (40 CFR 1502.9 (c) and 10 CFR 1021.314) that would require preparation of a Supplemental EIS. Specifically, this analysis is intended to determine if: (1) the Steam Reforming Option identified in the Final EIS adequately bounds impacts from the Steam Reforming Process proposed by the new ICP Contractor using the new characterization data, (2) the new characterization data is significantly different than the data presented in the Final EIS, (3) the new calculation methods present a significant change to the impacts described in the Final EIS, and (4) would the updated characterization data cause significant changes in the environmental impacts for the action alternatives/options presented in the Final EIS. There are no other aspects of the Final EIS that require additional review because DOE has not identified any additional new significant circumstances or information that would warrant such a review.

In the summer of 2020, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) plans to launch a spacecraft as part of the Mars 2020 mission. One option for the rover on the proposed spacecraft uses a Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG) to provide continuous electrical and thermal power for the mission. An alternative option being considered is a set of solar panels for electrical power with up to 80 Light-Weight Radioisotope Heater Units (LWRHUs) for local component heating. Both the MMRTG and the LWRHUs use radioactive plutonium dioxide. NASA is preparing an Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EIS will include information on the risks of mission accidents to the general public and on-site workers at the launch complex. This Nuclear Risk Assessment (NRA) addresses the responses of the MMRTG or LWRHU options to potential accident and abort conditions during the launch opportunity for the Mars 2020 mission and the associated consequences. This information provides the technical basis for the radiological risks of both options for the EIS.

This EIS analyzes the significant environmental impacts that could occur if various technologies for management and disposal of high-level and transuranic wastes from commercial nuclear power reactors were to be developed and implemented. This EIS will serve as the environmental input for the decision on which technology, or technologies, will be emphasized in further research and development activities in the commercial waste management program. The action proposed in this EIS is to (1) adopt a national strategy to develop mined geologic repositories for disposal of commercially generated high-level and transuranic radioactive waste (while continuing to examine subseabed and very deep hole disposal as potential backup technologies) and (2) conduct a R and D program to develop such facilities and the necessary technology to ensure the safe long-term containment and isolation of these wastes. The Department has considered in this statement: development of conventionally mined deep geologic repositories for disposal of spent fuel from nuclear power reactors and/or radioactive fuel reprocessing wastes; balanced development of several alternative disposal methods; and no waste disposal action. This volume contains appendices of supplementary data on waste management systems, geologic disposal, radiological standards, radiation dose calculation models, related health effects, baseline ecology, socio-economic conditions, hazard indices, comparison of defense and commercial wastes, design considerations, and wastes from thorium-based fuel cycle alternatives. (DMC)

The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) is proposing to fabricate and deploy a multi-purpose canister (MPC) system for the management of civilian spent nuclear fuel. If implemented, the MPC system could be used for temporary storage and transportation, and eventual disposal of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants. With the MPC system, multiple spent fuel assemblies would be placed inside a metal canister and sealed at the nuclear power plant. The canister would be placed inside other casks or containers designed for the specific purposes of transportation, temporary storage, and disposal. An Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) is being prepared to evaluate the environmental effects of the MPC system technology and several other technologies for managing spent nuclear fuel pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA directs Federal agencies to perform environmental evaluations of proposed major projects and emphasizes public involvement during the entire EIS process. Through an initial process called scoping, other Federal and State agencies and the public are given an opportunity to provide comments on environmental issues and recommend alternatives to be addressed in the EIS. This paper describes the approached used by OCRWM to maximize public input on the MPC EIS.

This report has been prepared to make available and archive information developed during preparation of the Environmental ImpactStatement for Phases 3 and 4 of the Hawaii Geothermal Project as defined by the state of Hawaii in its April 1989 proposal to Congress. On May 17, 1994, the USDOE published a notice in the Federal Register withdrawing its Notice of Intent of February 14, 1992, to prepare the HGP EIS. Since the state of Hawaii is no longer pursuing or planning to pursue the HGP, DOE considers the project to be terminated. This report provides a bibliography of documents, published papers, and other reference materials that were obtained or used. The report provides citations for approximately 642 documents, published papers, and other reference materials that were gathered to describe the potentially affected environment on the islands of Hawaii, Maui, and Oahu. The listing also does not include all the reference materials developed by support subcontractors and cooperating agencies who participated in the project. This listing does not include correspondence or other types of personal communications. The documents listed in this report can be obtained from original sources or libraries.

On May 12, 1995, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued the draft Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test Facility Environmental ImpactStatement (DARHT EIS) for review by the State of New Mexico, Indian Tribes, local governments, other Federal agencies, and the general public. DOE invited comments on the accuracy and adequacy of the draft EIS and any other matters pertaining to their environmental reviews. The formal comment period ran for 45 days, to June 26, 1995, although DOE indicated that late comments would be considered to the extent possible. As part of the public comment process, DOE held two public hearings in Los Alamos and Santa Fe, New Mexico, on May 31 and June 1, 1995. In addition, DOE made the draft classified supplement to the DARHT EIS available for review by appropriately cleared individuals with a need to know the classified information. Reviewers of the classified material included the State of New Mexico, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Defense, and certain Indian Tribes. Volume 2 of the final DARHT EIS contains three chapters. Chapter 1 includes a collective summary of the comments received and DOE`s response. Chapter 2 contains the full text of the public comments on the draft DARHT EIS received by DOE. Chapter 3 contains DOE`s responses to the public comments and an indication as to how the comments were considered in the final EIS.

This Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) examines a proposal for improvements at the existing University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Institute of Marine Science (IMS), Seward Marine Center. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Trustee Council is proposing to improve the existing research infrastructure to enhance the EVOS Trustee Council`s capabilities to study and rehabilitate marine mammals, marine birds, and the ecosystem injured by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The analysis in this document focuses on the effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed project and its proposed alternatives. The EIS gives a detailed description of all major elements of the proposed project and its alternatives; identifies resources of major concern that were raised during the scoping process; describes the environmental background conditions of those resources; defines and analyzes the potential effects of the proposed project and its alternatives on these conditions; and identifies mitigating measures that are part of the project design as well as those proposed to minimize or reduce the adverse effects. Included in the EIS are written and oral comments received during the public comment period.

Adequate provision of information is essential for decision making. This paper provides the results of the quality assessment of Environmental ImpactStatements (EIS), documents prescribed by EIA Directive (337/85/EEC). The assessment was completed by several categories of reviewers in Estonia, which has been an EU member state since 2004. The quality assessment of EIS was based on the EC Guidance on EIS Review (2001). Firstly, the quality assessment of 50 randomly selected EIS was carried out by a single reviewer. Secondly, the individual grading among 24 independent reviewers of a single EIS was tested. Thirdly, a comparison of the results of 15 individual and 5 group assessments of the same EIS was conducted. The results from the quality assessment of the selected EIS demonstrate a satisfactory level of information provided for decision making; 68% of the sample EIS were positively graded. However, more than half of the 50 EIS were graded as 'just satisfactory'. Comparison between the individual and group assessment of the same EIS demonstrates that the group assessment is more critical than the individual assessment. This possibly results from a wider technical expertise and balancing of subjective values and perspectives among group members. Arguably, the current practice of EIA competent authorities assessing the quality of EIS with individuals could be revised. We discuss the effect of the group assessment on expanding the narrow technical expertise and the subjectivity of a single expert.

This report has been compiled by the WSRC Nuclear Materials Processing Division`s Planning Section at the request of the Office of Spent Fuel Management and Special Projects (EM-37) to support issuance of the Spent Nuclear Fuel Environmental ImpactStatement. Savannah River Site input data evaluates five programmatic options (including {open_quotes}No Action{close_quotes}) ranging up to transfer of all DOE responsibility spent fuel to the SRS. For each option, a range of management/disposition scenarios has been examined. Each case summary provides information relative to the technical proposal, technical issues, environmental impacts, and projected costs for a forty year period (FY-35) when it is assumed that the material will be dispositioned from the SRS. The original issue of the report which was prepared under severe time constraints contained many simplifications and assumptions. Although the revisions have corrected some of the shortcomings of the original report, it is still highly recommended that significant additional study be performed before basing key decisions upon the data contained in this report. The data represents the best effort by a significant group of technical personnel familiar with nuclear materials processing, handling, and storage; but it is likely that careful scrutiny will reveal numerous discrepancies, inconsistencies and omissions. Nor does this report attempt to analyze every potential disposal pathway, but probably establishes the bounds for the most of the viable pathways. The bulk of the effort went into defining the engineering approaches necessary to execute the various mission scenarios which were changed since the last revision. The decision to limit reprocessing to only SRS aluminum clad required a major alteration of the TDS. Collection and/or calculation of much of the various waste, emission, and utility consumption data, so important to an EIS, has been updated since the last revision, but not thoroughly completed.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management has produced a Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement (PEIS) in order to assess the potential consequences resulting from a cross section of possible waste management strategies for the DOE complex. The PEIS has been prepared in compliance with the NEPA and includes evaluations of a variety of alternatives. The analysis performed for the PEIS included the development of life-cycle cost estimates for the different waste management alternatives being considered. These cost estimates were used in the PEIS to support the identification and evaluation of economic impacts. Information developed during the preparation of the life-cycle cost estimates was also used to support risk and socioeconomic analyses performed for each of the alternatives. This technical report provides an overview of the methodology used to develop the life-cycle cost estimates for the PEIS alternatives. The methodology that was applied made use of the Waste Management Facility Cost Information Reports, which provided a consistent approach and estimating basis for the PEIS cost evaluations. By maintaining consistency throughout the cost analyses, life-cycle costs of the various alternatives can be compared and evaluated on a relative basis. This technical report also includes the life-cycle cost estimate results for each of the PEIS alternatives evaluated. Summary graphs showing the results for each waste type are provided and tables showing different breakdowns of the cost estimates are provided. Appendix E contains PEIS cost information that was developed using an approach different than the standard methodology described in this report. Specifically, costs for high-level waste are found in this section, as well as supplemental costs for additional low-level waste and hazardous waste alternatives.

This Economic Regulatory Administration statement assesses the potential for cumulative and interactive environmental impacts resulting from conversion of up to 42 northeastern power plants from oil to coal and from an alternative “Voluntary Conversion” scenario for 27 power plants.

This Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental ImpactStatement (HSW EIS) provides environmental and technical information concerning U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) ongoing and proposed waste management practices at the Hanford Site in Washington State. The HSW EIS updates some analyses of environmental consequences from previous documents and provides evaluations for activities that may be implemented consistent with the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement (WM PEIS; DOE 1997c) Records of Decision (RODs). The draft HSW EIS was initially issued in April 2002 for public comment (DOE 2002b). A revised draft HSW EIS was issued in March 2003 to address new waste management alternatives that had been proposed since the initial draft HSW EIS was prepared, and to address comments received during the public review period for the first draft (DOE 2003d). The revised draft HSW EIS also incorporated alternatives for disposal of immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW) from treatment of Hanford Site tank waste in the waste treatment plant (WTP) currently under construction, an activity that was not included in the first draft (68 FR 7110). This final HSW EIS describes the DOE preferred alternative, and in response to public comments received on the March 2003 revised draft, provides additional analyses for some environmental consequences associated with the preferred alternative, with other alternatives, and with cumulative impacts. Public comments on the revised draft HSW EIS are addressed in the comment response document (Volume III of this final EIS). This HSW EIS describes the environmental consequences of alternatives for constructing, modifying, and operating facilities to store, treat, and/or dispose of low-level (radioactive) waste (LLW), transuranic (TRU) waste, ILAW, and mixed low-level waste (MLLW) including WTP melters at Hanford. In addition, the potential long-term consequences of LLW, MLLW, and ILAW disposal on groundwater and surface water are evaluated for a 10,000-year period, although the DOE performance standards only require assessment for the first 1000 years after disposal (DOE 2001f). This document does not address non-radioactive waste that contains ''hazardous'' or ''dangerous'' waste, as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (42 USC 6901) and Washington State Dangerous Waste regulations (WAC 173-303). Following a previous National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 USC 4321) review (DOE 1997d), DOE decided to dispose of TRU waste in New Mexico at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), a repository that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 191 (63 FR 3623). This HSW EIS has been prepared in accordance with NEPA, the DOE implementing procedures for NEPA 10 CFR 1021, and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508).

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has applied to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for a Presidential Permit to construct and operate a double-circuit, 345,000-volt (345-kV) electric transmission line across the United States border with Mexico. Under Executive Order (EO) 10485 of September 3, 1953, as amended by EO 12038 of February 3, 1978, a Presidential Permit is required to construct, connect, operate, or maintain facilities at the U.S. international border for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country. DOE has determined that the issuance of a Presidential Permit to TEP for the proposed project would constitute a major Federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment within the meaning of the ''National Environmental Policy Act of 1969'' (NEPA) 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) {section}4321 et seq. For this reason, DOE has prepared this Draft Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) to evaluate potential environmental impacts from the proposed Federal action (granting a Presidential Permit for the proposed transmission facilities) and reasonable alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. This EIS was prepared in accordance with Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA, Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), and DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR 1021). DOE is the lead Federal Agency, as defined by 40 CFR 1501.5. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, U.S. and Mexico (USIBWC), are cooperating agencies. Each of these organizations will use the EIS for its own NEPA purposes, as described in the Federal Agencies' Purpose and Need and Authorizing Actions section of this summary. The 345-kV double-circuit transmission line would consist of twelve transmission line wires, or conductors, and two neutral ground wires that would provide both lightning protection and fiber optic communications, on a single set of support structures. The transmission line would originate at TEP's existing South Substation (which TEP would expand), in the vicinity of Sahuarita, Arizona, and interconnect with the Citizens Communications (Citizens) system at a Gateway Substation that TEP would construct west of Nogales, Arizona. The double-circuit transmission line would continue from the Gateway Substation south to cross the U.S.-Mexico border and extend approximately 60 miles (mi) (98 kilometers [km]) into the Sonoran region of Mexico, connecting with the Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE, the national electric utility of Mexico) at CFE's Santa Ana Substation.

The Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental ImpactStatement (HSW EIS) provides environmental and technical information concerning U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposed waste management practices at the Hanford Site. The HSW EIS updates analyses of environmental consequences from previous documents and provides evaluations for activities that may be implemented consistent with the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement (WM PEIS) Records of Decision (RODs). Waste types considered in the HSW EIS include operational low-level radioactive waste (LLW), mixed low-level waste (MLLW), immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW), and transuranic (TRU) waste (including TRU mixed waste). MLLW contains chemically hazardous components in addition to radionuclides. Alternatives for management of these wastes at the Hanford Site, including the alternative of No Action, are analyzed in detail. The LLW, MLLW, and TRU waste alternatives are evaluated for a range of waste volumes, representing quantities of waste that could be managed at the Hanford Site. A single maximum forecast volume is evaluated for ILAW. The No Action Alternative considers continuation of ongoing waste management practices at the Hanford Site and ceasing some operations when the limits of existing capabilities are reached. The No Action Alternative provides for continued storage of some waste types. The other alternatives evaluate expanded waste management practices including treatment and disposal of most wastes. The potential environmental consequences of the alternatives are generally similar. The major differences occur with respect to the consequences of disposal versus continued storage and with respect to the range of waste volumes managed under the alternatives. DOE's preferred alternative is to dispose of LLW, MLLW, and ILAW in a single, modular, lined facility near PUREX on Hanford's Central Plateau; to treat MLLW using a combination of onsite and offsite facilities; and to certify TRU waste onsite using a combination of existing, upgraded, and mobile facilities. DOE issued the Notice of Intent to prepare the HSW EIS on October 27, 1997, and held public meetings during the scoping period that extended through January 30, 1998. In April 2002, DOE issued the initial draft of the EIS. During the public comment period that extended from May through August 2002, DOE received numerous comments from regulators, tribal nations, and other stakeholders. In March 2003, DOE issued a revised draft of the HSW EIS to address those comments, and to incorporate disposal of ILAW and other alternatives that had been under consideration since the first draft was published. Comments on the revised draft were received from April 11 through June 11, 2003. This final EIS responds to comments on the revised draft and includes updated analyses to incorporate information developed since the revised draft was published. DOE will publish the ROD(s) in the ''Federal Register'' no sooner than 30 days after publication of the Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Availability of the final HSW EIS.

Currently, the Federal government coordinates the planning and operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) with projects owned and operated by the region`s non-Federal hydrogenerating utilities pursuant to the Pacific North-west Coordination Agreement (PNCA). The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) are parties to the PNCA on behalf of the government of the United States. The PNCA is a complex agreement that provides an opportunity for the region`s power producers to maximize the power system`s reliability and economy while meeting their multiple-use objectives. The PNCA does not dictate the operation of the resources it coordinates. It is essentially an accounting mechanism that exchanges the power produced among the parties in order to improve the reliability of the system and reduce regional power costs. Project owners retain complete autonomy to operate as needed to meet their multiple-use requirements. The PNCA was executed in 1964 as an important component of regional plans to maximize the Northwest`s hydro resource capability. Maximization also included the development of storage projects on the Columbia River in Canada pursuant to the terms of the 1964 Columbia River Treaty. Because of the link between power coordination and Treaty issues, the current parties to the PNCA, currently are contemplating entering into a replacement or renewed power coordination agreement. Because the power coordination agreement is a consensual arrangement, its ultimate provisions must be acceptable to all of its signatories. This Appendix R to the Final Environmental ImpactStatement of the Columbia River System is a presentation of the Pacific North-west Coordination Agreement.

The purpose of this document is to support the US Department of Energy (DOE) Fissile Materials Disposition Program`s preparation of the draft surplus plutonium disposition environmental impactstatement. This is one of several responses to data call requests for background information on activities associated with the operation of the lead assembly (LA) mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility. The DOE Office of Fissile Materials Disposition (DOE-MD) has developed a dual-path strategy for disposition of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. One of the paths is to disposition surplus plutonium through irradiation of MOX fuel in commercial nuclear reactors. MOX fuel consists of plutonium and uranium oxides (PuO{sub 2} and UO{sub 2}), typically containing 95% or more UO{sub 2}. DOE-MD requested that the DOE Site Operations Offices nominate DOE sites that meet established minimum requirements that could produce MOX LAs. LLNL has proposed an LA MOX fuel fabrication approach that would be done entirely inside an S and S Category 1 area. This includes receipt and storage of PuO{sub 2} powder, fabrication of MOX fuel pellets, assembly of fuel rods and bundles, and shipping of the packaged fuel to a commercial reactor site. Support activities will take place within a Category 1 area. Building 332 will be used to receive and store the bulk PuO{sub 2} powder, fabricate MOX fuel pellets, and assemble fuel rods. Building 334 will be used to assemble, store, and ship fuel bundles. Only minor modifications would be required of Building 332. Uncontaminated glove boxes would need to be removed, petition walls would need to be removed, and minor modifications to the ventilation system would be required.

The purpose of this document is to support the US Department of Energy (DOE) Fissile Materials Disposition Program`s preparation of the draft surplus plutonium disposition environmental impactstatement. This is one of several responses to data call requests for background information on activities associated with the operation of the lead assembly (LA) mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility. DOE-MD requested that the DOE Site Operations Offices nominate DOE sites that meet established minimum requirements that could produce MOX LAs. Six initial site combinations were proposed: (1) Argonne National Laboratory-West (ANL-W) with support from Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), (2) Hanford, (3) Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) with support from Pantex, (4) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), (5) Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), and (6) Savannah River Site (SRS). After further analysis by the sites and DOE-MD, five site combinations were established as possible candidates for producing MOX LAs: (1) ANL-W with support from INEEL, (2) Hanford, (3) LANL, (4) LLNL, and (5) SRS. Hanford has proposed an LA MOX fuel fabrication approach that would be done entirely inside an S and S Category 1 area. An alternate approach would allow fabrication of fuel pellets and assembly of fuel rods in an S and S Category 1 facility. In all, a total of three LA MOX fuel fabrication options were identified by Hanford that could accommodate the program. In every case, only minor modification would be required to ready any of the facilities to accept the equipment necessary to accomplish the LA program.

The purpose of this document is to support the US Department of Energy (DOE) Fissile Materials Disposition Program`s preparation of the draft surplus plutonium disposition environmental impactstatement. This is one of several responses to data call requests for background information on activities associated with the operation of the lead assembly (LA) mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility. LANL has proposed an LA MOX fuel fabrication approach that would be done entirely inside an S and S Category 1 area. This includes receipt and storage of PuO{sub 2} powder, fabrication of MOX fuel pellets, assembly of fuel rods and bundles, and shipping of the packaged fuel to a commercial reactor site. Support activities will take place within both Category 1 and 2 areas. Technical Area (TA) 55/Plutonium Facility 4 will be used to store the bulk PuO{sub 2} powder, fabricate MOX fuel pellets, assemble rods, and store fuel bundles. Bundles will be assembled at a separate facility, several of which have been identified as suitable for that activity. The Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Building (at TA-3) will be used for analytical chemistry support. Waste operations will be conducted in TA-50 and TA-54. Only very minor modifications will be needed to accommodate the LA program. These modifications consist mostly of minor equipment upgrades. A commercial reactor operator has not been identified for the LA irradiation. Postirradiation examination (PIE) of the irradiated fuel will take place at either Oak Ridge National Laboratory or ANL-W. The only modifications required at either PIE site would be to accommodate full-length irradiated fuel rods. Results from this program are critical to the overall plutonium distribution schedule.

The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) predecessor agency, established the Savannah River Site (SRS) near Aiken, South Carolina, in the early 1950s. The primary mission of SRS was to produce nuclear materials for national defense. With the end of the Cold War and the reduction in the size of the United States stockpile of nuclear weapons, the SRS mission has changed. While national defense is still an important facet of the mission, SRS no longer produces nuclear materials and the mission is focused on material stabilization, environmental restoration, waste management, and decontamination and decommissioning of facilities that are no longer needed. As a result of its nuclear materials production mission, SRS generated large quantities of high-level radioactive waste (HLW). The HLW resulted from dissolving spent reactor fuel and nuclear targets to recover the valuable radioactive isotopes. DOE had stored the HLW in 51 large underground storage tanks located in the F- and H-Area Tank Farms at SRS. DOE has emptied and closed two of those tanks. DOE is treating the HLW, using a process called vitrification. The highly radioactive portion of the waste is mixed with a glass like material and stored in stainless steel canisters at SRS, pending shipment to a geologic repository for disposal. This process is currently underway at SRS in the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF). The HLW tanks at SRS are of four different types, which provide varying degrees of protection to the environment due to different degrees of containment. The tanks are operated under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA) and DOE Orders issued under the AEA. The tanks are permitted by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) under South Carolina wastewater regulations, which require permitted facilities to be closed after they are removed from service. DOE has entered into an agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and SCDHEC to close the HLW tanks after they have been removed from service. Closure of the HLW tanks would comply with DOE's responsibilities under the AEA and the South Carolina closure requirements and be carried out under a schedule agreed to by DOE, EPA, and SCDHEC. There are several ways to close the HLW tanks. DOE has prepared this Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) to ensure that the public and DOE's decision makers have a thorough understanding of the potential environmental impacts of alternative means of closing the tanks. This Summary: (1) describes the HLW tanks and the closure process, (2) describes the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process that DOE is using to aid in decision making, (3) summarizes the alternatives for closing the HLW tanks and identifies DOE.s preferred alternative, and (4) identifies the major conclusions regarding environmental impacts, areas of controversy, and issues that remain to be resolved as DOE proceeds with the HLW tank closure process.

The purpose of this document is to support the US Department of Energy (DOE) Fissile Materials Disposition Program`s preparation of the draft surplus plutonium disposition environmental impactstatement. This is one of several responses to data call requests for background information on activities associated with the operation of the lead assembly (LA) mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility. DOE-MD requested that the DOE Site Operations Offices nominate DOE sites that meet established minimum requirements that could produce MOX LAs. Six initial site combinations were proposed: (1) Argonne National Laboratory-West (ANL-W) with support from Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), (2) Hanford, (3) Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) with support from Pantex, (4) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), (5) Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), and (6) Savannah River Site(SRS). After further analysis by the sites and DOE-MD, five site combinations were established as possible candidates for producing MOX LAs: (1) ANL-W with support from INEEL, (2) Hanford, (3) LANL, (4) LLNL, and (5) SRS. SRS has proposed an LA MOX fuel fabrication approach that would be done entirely inside an S and S Category 1 area. An alternate approach would allow fabrication of fuel pellets and assembly of fuel rods in an S and S Category 2 or 3 facility with storage of bulk PuO{sub 2} and assembly, storage, and shipping of fuel bundles in an S and S Category 1 facility. The total Category 1 approach, which is the recommended option, would be done in the 221-H Canyon Building. A facility that was never in service will be removed from one area, and a hardened wall will be constructed in another area to accommodate execution of the LA fuel fabrication. The non-Category 1 approach would require removal of process equipment in the FB-Line metal production and packaging glove boxes, which requires work in a contamination area. The Immobilization Hot Demonstration Program equipment in the Savannah River Technology Center would need to be removed to accommodate pellet fabrication. This work would also be in a contaminated area.

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2: Final Environmental Assessment376:EnvironmentalStatement |FinalStatementDepartment of

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2: Final Environmental Assessment376:EnvironmentalStatementStatement |Department of

This document is the final environmental impactstatement and final environmental impact report (FEIS/R) on the proposal by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) to complete the electrification of the Northeast Corridor main line by extending electric traction from New Haven, CT, to Boston, MA. This document (Volume IV) reprints the comments received on the DEIS/R.

The Programmatic Environmental impactStatement (PEIS) being developed by the US Department of Energy (DOE) for environmental restoration (ER) and waste management (WM) activities expected to be carried out across the DOE`s nationwide complex of facilities is assessing the impacts of removing, transporting, treating, storing, and disposing of waste from these ER and WM activities. Factors being considered include health and safety impacts to the public and to workers, impacts on the environment, costs and socio-economic impacts, and near-term and residual risk during those ER and WM operations. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the methodology developed specifically for the PEIS to estimate costs associated with the deployment and application of individual remediation technologies. These individual costs are used in developing order-of-magnitude cost estimates for the total remediation activities. Costs are developed on a per-unit-of-material-to-be-treated basis (i.e., $/m{sup 3}) to accommodate remediation projects of varying sizes. The primary focus of this cost-estimating effort was the development of capital and operating unit cost factors based on the amount of primary media to be removed, handled, and treated. The unit costs for individual treatment technologies were developed using information from a variety of sources, mainly from periodicals, EPA documentation, handbooks, vendor contacts, and cost models. The unit cost factors for individual technologies were adjusted to 1991 dollars.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Bonneville Power Administration prepared this statement in order to fulfill its National Environmental Policy Act obligations ahead of signing an agreement with the utilities that would purchase the Windplant’s power from KENETECH. KENETECH Windpower, Inc., proposes to construct and operate Washington Windplant No. 1 in the Columbia Hills area, southeast of Goldendale, in Klickitat County, Washington.

This EIS analyzes the significant environmental impacts that could occur if various technologies for management and disposal of high-level and transuranic wastes from commercial nuclear power reactors were to be developed and implemented. This EIS will serve as the environmental input for the decision on which technology, or technologies, will be emphasized in further research and development activities in the commercial waste management program. The action proposed in this EIS is to (1) adopt a national strategy to develop mined geologic repositories for disposal of commercially generated high-level and transuranic radioactive waste (while continuing to examine subseabed and very deep hole disposal as potential backup technologies) and (2) conduct a R and D program to develop such facilities and the necessary technology to ensure the safe long-term containment and isolation of these wastes. The Department has considered in this statement: development of conventionally mined deep geologic repositories for disposal of spent fuel from nuclear power reactors and/or radioactive fuel reprocessing wastes; balanced development of several alternative disposal methods; and no waste disposal action. This volume contains written public comments and hearing board responses and reports offered on the draft statement.

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2: Final Environmental Assessment376: FinalDepartment of EnergyRecordStatement

This Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) assesses the potential environmental impacts, both on a broad programmatic level and on a project-specific level, concerning a proposed action to provide new tritium production capacity to meet the nation`s nuclear defense requirements well into the 21st century. A capacity equivalent to that of about a 3,000-megawatt (thermal) heavy-water reactor was assumed as a reference basis for analysis in this EIS; this is the approximate capacity of the existing production reactors at DOE`s Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina. The EIS programmatic alternatives address Departmental decisions to be made on whether to build new production facilities, whether to build one or more complexes, what size production capacity to provide, and when to provide this capacity. Project-specific impacts for siting, constructing, and operating new production reactor capacity are assessed for three alternative sites: the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho; and the Savannah River Site. For each site, the impacts of three reactor technologies (and supporting facilities) are assessed: a heavy-water reactor, a light-water reactor, and a modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. Impacts of the no-action alternative also are assessed. The EIS evaluates impacts related to air quality; noise levels; surface water, groundwater, and wetlands; land use; recreation; visual environment; biotic resources; historical, archaeological, and cultural resources; socioeconomics; transportation; waste management; and human health and safety. The EIS describes in detail the potential radioactive releases from new production reactors and support facilities and assesses the potential doses to workers and the general public. This volume contains 15 appendices.

BPA is considering whether to purchase electrical power from a proposed privately-owned combustion-turbine electrical generation plant in Washington. The plant would be fired by natural gas and would use combined-cycle technology to generate 240 average megawatts (aMW) of energy. The plant would be developed, owned, and operated by Tenaska Washington Partners II, L.P. The project would be located about 19 kilometers (12 miles) southeast of downtown Tacoma in the Frederickson Industrial Area, Pierce County. The proposed plant would occupy about half of a 6.4-hectare (16-acre) parcel and would be consistent with the industrial character of its surroundings. The proposed site is currently undeveloped and zoned for industrial use by the county. Main environmental concerns identified in the scoping process and in comments on the Draft Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) include: (1) potential air quality impacts, such as emissions and their contribution to the {open_quotes}greenhouse{close_quotes} effect; (2) potential health and safety impacts, such as nuisance odors, plant safety, visibility and heat-emission systems which may affect low-flying planes and potential health effects of electric and magnetic fields; and (3) potential water quality and quantity impacts, such as the amount of wastewater to be discharged, the source and amount of water required for plant operation. These and other issues are discussed in detail in the EIS. The proposed project already includes many features designed to reduce environmental impacts. Based on investigations performed for the EIS, no significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed project were identified, and no evidence emerged to suggest that the proposed action is controversial. The EIS is being mailed to numerous agencies, groups, and individuals (see Section 8.0). There will be a 30-day no-action period before any decisions are made and the Record of Decision is signed.

This two-volume Final Environmental ImpactStatement (FEIS) was prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in accordance with regulation 10 CFR Part 51, which implements the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Volume 1 contains the assessment of the potential environmental impacts for licensing the construction and operation of a proposed gaseous centrifuge enrichment facility to be built in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana, by Louisiana Energy Services, LP. (LES). The proposed facility would have a production capacity of about 866 metric tons annually of up to 5 weight percent enriched UF{sub 6}, using a proven centrifuge technology. Included in the assessment are construction, both normal operations and potential accidents (internal and external events), and the eventual decontamination and decommissioning (D&D)- of the site. Issues addressed include the purpose and need for the facility, the alternatives to the proposed action, potential disposition of the tails, the site selection process, and environmental justice. The NRC staff concludes that the facility can be constructed and operated with small and acceptable impacts on the public and the environment. The FEIS supports issuance of a license to the applicant, Louisiana Energy Services, to authorize construction and operation of the proposed facility.

The Salt Lake City Area Office of the Western Area Power Administration (Western) markets electricity produced at hydroelectric facilities operated by the Bureau of Reclamation. The facilities are known collectively as the Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects (SLCA/IP) and include dams equipped for power generation on the Green, Gunnison, Rio Grande, and Colorado rivers and on Deer and Plateau creeks in the states of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. Of these facilities, only the Glen Canyon Unit, the Flaming Gorge Unit, and the Aspinall Unit (which includes Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and Crystal dams;) are influenced by Western power scheduling and transmission decisions. The EIS alternatives, called commitment-level alternatives, reflect combinations of capacity and energy that would feasibly and reasonably fulfill Westerns firm power marketing responsibilities, needs, and statutory obligations. The viability of these alternatives relates directly to the combination of generation capability of the SLCA/IP with energy purchases and interchange. The economic and natural resource assessments in this environmental impactstatement (EIS) include an analysis of commitment-level alternatives. Impacts of the no-action alternative are also assessed. Supply options, which include combinations of electrical power purchases and hydropower operational scenarios reflecting different operations of the dams, are also assessed. The EIS evaluates the impacts of these scenarios relative to socioeconomics, air resources, water resources, ecological resources, cultural resources, land use, recreation, and visual resources.

The Salt Lake City Area Office of the Western Area Power Administration (Western) markets electricity produced at hydroelectric facilities operated by the Bureau of Reclamation. The facilities are known collectively as the Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects (SLCA/IP) and include dams equipped for power generation on the Green, Gunnison, Rio Grande, and Colorado rivers and on Deer and Plateau creeks in the states of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. Of these facilities, only the Glen Canyon Unit, the Flaming Gorge Unit, and the Aspinall Unit (which includes Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and Crystal dams;) are influenced by Western power scheduling and transmission decisions. The EIS alternatives, called commitment-level alternatives, reflect combinations of capacity and energy that would feasibly and reasonably fulfill Westerns firm power marketing responsibilities, needs, and statutory obligations. The viability of these alternatives relates directly to the combination of generation capability of the SLCA/IP with energy purchases and interchange. The economic and natural resource assessments in this environmental impactstatement (EIS) include an analysis of commitment-level alternatives. Impacts of the no-action alternative are also assessed. Supply options, which include combinations of electrical power purchases and hydropower operational scenarios reflecting different operations of the dams, are also assessed. The EIS evaluates the impacts of these scenarios relative to socioeconomics, air resources, water resources, ecological resources, cultural resources, land use, recreation, and visual resources.

This document is the final environmental impactstatement and final environmental impact report (FEIS/R) on the proposal by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) to complete the electrification of the Northeast Corridor main line by extending electric traction from New Haven, CT, to Boston, MA. This document (Volume II) presents additional technical studies to supplement Volume III of the DEIS/R issued in October 1993 (PB94-111838).

This Supplemental EIS (SEIS) analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with changes to the surplus plutonium disposition program, including changes to the inventory of surplus plutonium and proposed new alternatives.

This document presents two versions of the outline for the environmental impactstatements (EISS) to be prepared for the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project. The first displays the basic structure of the statements; it lists only the titles of sections. The second is a guide to the contents of the statements which provides, under each title, a brief summary of contents. The outline is intended to comply with the planning requirements and the definitions of terms established by the Council on Environmental Quality as well as DOE Order 5440.lB (Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act), and compliance with Floodplain/Wetlands Environmental Review Requirements. These requirements and definitions are implicity part of the outline. The outline presented in this document will guide the preparation of EISs Guidelines for preparation of environmental assessments for the UMTRA Project are available.

This Programmatic EIS (PEIS) will evaluate the potential environmental impacts of implementing one or more programs to catalyze the deployment of engineered high energy crops (EHECs). A main component of the proposed EHEC programs would be providing financial assistance to evaluate the performance of EHECs. This PEIS will assess the potential environmental impacts of such confined field trials in the southeastern United States. DOE’s proposed action under this PEIS will be limited to the states of Alabama, Florida (excluding the Everglades/Southern Florida coastal plain ecoregion), Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.

This Final Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) covers the proposed 1994 Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas lease sales [Central Gulf of Mexico Sale 147 (March 1994) and Western Gulf of Mexico Sale 150 (August 1994)]. This document includes the purpose and background of the proposed actions, the alternatives, the descriptions of the affected environment, and the potential environmental impacts of the proposed actions and alternatives. Proposed mitigating measures and their effects are analyzed, in addition to potential cumulative impacts resulting from proposed activities.

The purpose of this environmental impactstatement (EIS) is to provide information on potential environmental impacts that could result from a Proposed Action to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a geologic repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at the Yucca Mountain site in Nye County, Nevada. The EIS also provides information on potential environmental impacts from an alternative referred to as the No-Action Alternative, under which there would be no development of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain.

This Final Y-12 Site-wide EIS analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the reasonable alternatives for ongoing and foreseeable future operations and activities at Y-12, including alternatives for changes to site infrastructure and levels of operation (using production capacity as the key metric for comparison).

BPA has been asked by PPM Energy, Inc. to interconnect 300 megawatts (MW) of electricity generated from the proposed Klondike III Wind Project to the Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Orion Energy LLC has also asked BPA to interconnect 400 MW of electricity from its proposed Biglow Canyon Wind Farm, located north and east of the proposed Klondike III Wind Project. (Portland General Electric recently bought the rights to develop the proposed Biglow Canyon Wind Farm from Orion Energy, LLC.) Both wind projects received Site Certificates from the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council on June 30, 2006. To interconnect these projects, BPA would need to build and operate a 230-kV double-circuit transmission line about 12 miles long, expand one substation and build one new substation. The wind projects would require wind turbines, substation(s), access roads, and other facilities. Two routes for the transmission line are being considered. Both begin at PPM's Klondike Schoolhouse Substation then travel north (Proposed Action) or north and westerly (Middle Alternative) to a new BPA 230-kV substation next to BPA's existing John Day 500-kV Substation. BPA is also considering a No Action Alternative in which BPA would not build the transmission line and would not interconnect the wind projects. The proposed BPA and wind projects would be located on private land, mainly used for agriculture. If BPA decides to interconnect the wind projects, construction of the BPA transmission line and substation(s) could commence as early as the winter of 2006-07. Both wind projects would operate for much of each year for at least 20 years. The proposed projects would generally create no or low impacts. Wildlife resources and local visual resources are the only resources to receive an impact rating other than ''none'' or ''low''. The low to moderate impacts to wildlife are from the expected bird and bat mortality and the cumulative impact of this project on wildlife when combined with other proposed wind projects in the region. The low to high impacts to visual resources reflect the effect that the transmission line and the turbine strings from both wind projects would have on viewers in the local area, but this impact diminishes with distance from the project.

The purpose of this document is to support the US Department of Energy (DOE) Fissile Materials Disposition Program`s preparation of the draft surplus plutonium disposition environmental impactstatement (EIS). This is one of several responses to data call requests for background information on activities associated with the operation of the lead assembly (LA) mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility. The DOE Office of fissile Materials Disposition (DOE-MD) has developed a dual-path strategy for disposition of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. One of the paths is to disposition surplus plutonium through irradiation of MOX fuel in commercial nuclear reactors. MOX fuel consists of plutonium and uranium oxides (PuO{sub 2} and UO{sub 2}), typically containing 95% or more UO{sub 2}. DOE-MD requested that the DOE Site Operations Offices nominate DOE sites that meet established minimum requirements that could produce MOX LAs. The paper describes the following: Site map and the LA facility; process descriptions; resource needs; employment requirements; wastes, emissions, and exposures; accident analysis; transportation; qualitative decontamination and decommissioning; post-irradiation examination; LA fuel bundle fabrication; LA EIS data report assumptions; and LA EIS data report supplement.

Volume II of the programmatic environmental impactstatement (PElS) is a comment and response document; it is the collection of the comments received on the draft PElS. The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) response to each comment is provided after each comment. If the comment resulted in a change to the PElS, the affected section number of the PElS is provided in the response. Comments 1 through 259 were received at public hearings. The name of the hearing at which the comment was received is listed after each comment. Comments were recorded on flip charts and by notetakers. DOE representatives were present to hear the comments and respond to them. The DOE's written response is provided after each comment. Comments 260 through 576 were received in writing at the hearings, and from various federal, tribal, and state agencies and from individuals during the public comment period. Copies of the written comments follow the comments and responses.

This final environmental impactstatement (FEIS) has been prepared for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) to consider modifications to the existing Lower Mokelumne River Project (LMRP) (FERC Project No. 2916-004) in California. Chinook salmon and steelhead trout populations in the lower Mokelumne River have experienced recent declines and fish kills associated, in part, with discharges from Camanche Dam. The California Department of Fish and Game and the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance have asked the Commission to investigate and correct these problems. A wide range of different mitigation actions has been proposed by parties participating in the scoping of this proceeding, and staff has evaluated these proposed actions in this assessment. The staff is recommending a combination of flow and non-flow modifications to the existing license, including new minimum flow and minimum pool elevation requirements at Camanche Reservoir, ramping rates on dam releases, interim attraction and out-migrant spike flows, instream habitat improvements, and a series of studies and monitoring to determine feasible means for solving off-site fish passage problems.

This Final Supplement to the Final Environmental ImpactStatement (Final Supplement) evaluates the economic, engineering, and environmental aspects of newly developed alternatives to an abandonment/conversion project proposed by Florida Gas Transmission Company (Florida Gas). It also updates the staff's previous FEIS and studies revisions to the original proposal. Wherever possible, the staff has adopted portions of its previous FEIS in lieu of reprinting portions of that analysis which require no change. 60 references, 8 figures, 35 tables.

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed off Energy.gov. Are you0andEnergyGlobalEnergy 2014:514:Impact5: Draft

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2: Final Environmental Assessment376: Final Environmental ImpactEnvironmentalRecord

This study attempts to identify and analyze the impacts of the System Operating Strategy (SOS) alternatives on cultural resources. The impacts include effects on Native American traditional cultural values, properties and practices. They also include effects on archeological or historic properties meeting the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. In addition to responding to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this analysis addresses the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Native American Religious Freedom Act (NARFA), and other relevant legislation. To meet their legally mandated cultural resources requirements, the SOR agencies will develop agreements and Implementation Plans with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Tribes, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) detailing the measures necessary to best manage the resource. The planning and implementation activities will be staged over a number of years in consultation with affected Tribes.

The evaluation and communication of the significance of environmental effects remains a critical yet poorly understood component of EIA theory and practice. Following a conceptual overview of the generic dimensions of impact significance in EIA, this paper reports upon the findings of an empirical study of recent environmental impactstatements that considers the treatment of significance for impacts concerning landscape ('see no evil') and noise ('hear no evil'), focussing specifically upon the evaluation and communication of impact significance ('speak no evil') in UK practice. Particular attention is given to the use of significance criteria and thresholds, including the development of a typology of approaches applied within the context of noise and landscape/visual impacts. Following a broader discussion of issues surrounding the formulation, application and interpretation of significance criteria, conclusions and recommendations relevant to wider EIA practice are suggested.

This PEIS evaluates impacts of alternative Recovery Implementation Programs to: (1) Secure defined benefits for the target species and their associated habitats to assist in their conservation and recovery through a basin-wide cooperative approach that can be agreed to by the three states and the Department of the Interior; (2) serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative to offset the effects of existing and new water related activities in the Platte River Basin that, in the absence of such a Program, would be found by the U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service to be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the target species or adversely modify designated critical habitat; (3) help prevent the need to list more basin associated species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act; and (4) mitigate new water related activities in a state in a manner that will not increase the mitigation responsibilities of other signatory states.

This EIS assesses environmental issues associated with constructing and demonstrating a project that would be cost-shared by DOE and JEA (formerly the Jacksonville Electric Authority) under the Clean Coal Technology Program. The project would demonstrate circulating fluidized bed (CFB) combustion technology at JEA's existing Northside Generating Station in Jacksonville, Florida, about 9 miles northeast of the downtown area of Jacksonville. The new CFB combustor would use coal and petroleum coke to generate nearly 300 MW of electricity by repowering the existing Unit 2 steam turbine, a 297.5-MW unit that has been out of service since 1983. The proposed project is expected to demonstrate emission levels of sulfur dioxide (SO{sub 2}), oxides of nitrogen (NO{sub x}), and particulate matter that would be lower than Clean Air Act limits while at the same time producing power more efficiently and at less cost than conventional coal utilization technologies. At their own risk, JEA has begun initial construction activities without DOE funding. Construction would take approximately two years and, consistent with the original JEA schedule, would be completed in December 2001. Demonstration of the proposed project would be conducted during a 2-year period from March 2002 until March 2004. In addition, JEA plans to repower the currently operating Unit 1 steam turbine about 6 to 12 months after the Unit 2 repowering without cost-shared funding from DOE. Although the proposed project consists of only the Unit 2 repowering, this EIS analyzes the Unit 1 repowering as a related action. The EIS also considers three reasonably foreseeable scenarios that could result from the no-action alternative in which DOE would not provide cost-shared funding for the proposed project. The proposed action, in which DOE would provide cost-shared finding for the proposed project, is DOE's preferred alternative. The EIS evaluates the principal environmental issues, including air quality, traffic, noise, and ecological resources, that could result from construction and operation of the proposed project. Key findings include that maximum modeled increases in ground-level concentrations of SO{sub 2} nitrogen dioxide (NO{sub 2}), and particulate matter (for the proposed project alone or in conjunction with the related action) would always be less than 10% of their corresponding standards for increases in pollutants. For potential cumulative air quality impacts, results of modeling regional sources and the proposed project indicate that the maximum 24-hour average SO{sub 2} concentration would closely approach (i.e., 97%) but not exceed the corresponding Florida standard. After the Unit 1 repowering, results indicate that the maximum 24-hour average SO{sub 2} concentration would be 91% of the Florida standard. Concentrations for other averaging periods and pollutants would be lower percentages of their standards. Regarding toxic air pollutants from the proposed project, the maximum annual cancer risk to a member of the public would be approximately 1 in 1 million; given the conservative assumptions in the estimate, the risk would probably be less. With regard to threatened and endangered species, impacts to manatees, gopher tortoises, and other species would be negligible or non-existent. Construction-induced traffic would result in noticeable congestion. In the unlikely event that all coal were transported by rail, up to 3 additional trains per week would exacerbate impacts associated with noise, vibration, and blocked roads at on-grade rail crossings. Additional train traffic could be minimized by relying more heavily on barges and ships for coal transport, which is likely to be a more economic fuel delivery mode. During construction of the proposed project, noise levels would increase from the current operational levels. Except possibly during steam blowouts and possibly during operation of equipment used to construct a nearby segment of a conveyor, construction noise should not appreciably affect the background noise of nearby residences or exceed local nois

DOE is responsible for the safe and efficient management of its sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel. This fuel contains metallic sodium, a highly reactive material; metallic uranium, which is also reactive; and in some cases, highly enriched uranium. The presence of reactive materials could complicate the process of qualifying and licensing DOE's sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel inventory for disposal in a geologic repository. Currently, more than 98 percent of this inventory is located at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), near Idaho Falls, Idaho. In addition, in a 1995 agreement with the State of Idaho, DOE committed to remove all spent nuclear fuel from Idaho by 2035. This EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the treatment and management of sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel in one or more facilities located at Argonne National Laboratory-West (ANL-W) at INEEL and either the F-Canyon or Building 105-L at the Savannah River Site (SRS) near Aiken, South Carolina. DOE has identified and assessed six proposed action alternatives in this EIS. These are: (1) electrometallurgical treatment of all fuel at ANL-W, (2) direct disposal of blanket fuel in high-integrity cans with the sodium removed at ANL-W, (3) plutonium-uranium extraction (PUREX) processing of blanket fuel at SRS, (4) melt and dilute processing of blanket fuel at ANL-W, (5) melt and dilute processing of blanket fuel at SRS, and (6) melt and dilute processing of all fuel at ANL-W. In addition, Alternatives 2 through 5 include the electrometallurgical treatment of driver fuel at ANL-W. Under the No Action Alternative, the EIS evaluates both the continued storage of sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel until the development of a new treatment technology or direct disposal without treatment. Under all of the alternatives, the affected environment is primarily within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of spent nuclear fuel treatment facilities. Analyses indicate little difference in the environmental impacts among alternatives. DOE has identified electrometallurgical treatment as its Preferred Alternative for the treatment and management of all sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel, except for the Fermi-1 blanket fuel. The No Action Alternative is preferred for the Fermi-1 blanket spent nuclear fuel.

This document is a site-specific environmental impactstatement (EIS) for construction and operation of a proposed depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF{sub 6}) conversion facility at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Portsmouth site in Ohio (Figure S-1). The proposed facility would convert the DUF{sub 6} stored at Portsmouth to a more stable chemical form suitable for use or disposal. The facility would also convert the DUF{sub 6} from the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) site near Oak Ridge, Tennessee. In a Notice of Intent (NOI) published in the Federal Register on September 18, 2001 (Federal Register, Volume 66, page 48123 [66 FR 48123]), DOE announced its intention to prepare a single EIS for a proposal to construct, operate, maintain, and decontaminate and decommission two DUF{sub 6} conversion facilities at Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (United States Code, Title 42, Section 4321 et seq. [42 USC 4321 et seq.]) and DOE's NEPA implementing procedures (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 1021 [10 CFR Part 1021]). Subsequent to award of a contract to Uranium Disposition Services, LLC (hereafter referred to as UDS), Oak Ridge, Tennessee, on August 29, 2002, for design, construction, and operation of DUF{sub 6} conversion facilities at Portsmouth and Paducah, DOE reevaluated its approach to the NEPA process and decided to prepare separate site-specific EISs. This change was announced in a Federal Register Notice of Change in NEPA Compliance Approach published on April 28, 2003 (68 FR 22368); the Notice is included as Attachment B to Appendix C of this EIS. This EIS addresses the potential environmental impacts from the construction, operation, maintenance, and decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the proposed conversion facility at three alternative locations within the Portsmouth site; from the transportation of all ETTP cylinders (DUF{sub 6}, low-enriched UF6 [LEU-UF{sub 6}], and empty) to Portsmouth; from the transportation of depleted uranium conversion products to a disposal facility; and from the transportation, sale, use, or disposal of the fluoride-containing conversion products (hydrogen fluoride [HF] or calcium fluoride [CaF{sub 2}]). An option of shipping the ETTP cylinders to Paducah is also considered. In addition, this EIS evaluates a no action alternative, which assumes continued storage of DUF{sub 6} in cylinders at the Portsmouth and ETTP sites. A separate EIS (DOE/EIS-0359) evaluates potential environmental impacts for the proposed Paducah conversion facility.

This document is a site-specific environmental impactstatement (EIS) for construction and operation of a proposed depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF{sub 6}) conversion facility at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Paducah site in northwestern Kentucky (Figure S-1). The proposed facility would convert the DUF{sub 6} stored at Paducah to a more stable chemical form suitable for use or disposal. In a Notice of Intent (NOI) published in the ''Federal Register'' (FR) on September 18, 2001 (''Federal Register'', Volume 66, page 48123 [66 FR 48123]), DOE announced its intention to prepare a single EIS for a proposal to construct, operate, maintain, and decontaminate and decommission two DUF{sub 6} conversion facilities at Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (''United States Code'', Title 42, Section 4321 et seq. [42 USC 4321 et seq.]) and DOE's NEPA implementing procedures (''Code of Federal Regulations'', Title 10, Part 1021 [10 CFR Part 1021]). Subsequent to award of a contract to Uranium Disposition Services, LLC (hereafter referred to as UDS), Oak Ridge, Tennessee, on August 29, 2002, for design, construction, and operation of DUF{sub 6} conversion facilities at Portsmouth and Paducah, DOE reevaluated its approach to the NEPA process and decided to prepare separate site-specific EISs. This change was announced in a ''Federal Register'' Notice of Change in NEPA Compliance Approach published on April 28, 2003 (68 FR 22368); the Notice is included as Attachment B to Appendix C of this EIS. This EIS addresses the potential environmental impacts from the construction, operation, maintenance, and decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the proposed conversion facility at three alternative locations within the Paducah site; from the transportation of depleted uranium conversion products to a disposal facility; and from the transportation, sale, use, or disposal of the fluoride-containing conversion products (hydrogen fluoride [HF] or calcium fluoride [CaF{sub 2}]). Although not part of the proposed action, an option of shipping all cylinders (DUF{sub 6}, low-enriched UF{sub 6} [LEU-UF{sub 6}], and empty) stored at the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to Paducah rather than to Portsmouth is also considered. In addition, this EIS evaluates a no action alternative, which assumes continued storage of DUF{sub 6} in cylinders at the Paducah site. A separate EIS (DOE/EIS-0360) evaluates the potential environmental impacts for the proposed Portsmouth conversion facility.

Pursuant to the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-414), DOE was directed to designate a facility or facilities for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury generated within the United States. Therefore, DOE has analyzed the storage of up to 10,000 metric tons (11,000 tons) of elemental mercury in a facility(ies) constructed and operated in accordance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (74 FR 31723).DOE prepared this Final Mercury Storage EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500–1508), and DOE’s NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR 1021) to evaluate reasonable alternatives for a facility(ies) for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury. This Final Mercury Storage EIS analyzes the potential environmental, human health, and socioeconomic impacts of elemental mercury storage at seven candidate locations:Grand Junction Disposal Site near Grand Junction, Colorado; Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; Hawthorne Army Depot near Hawthorne, Nevada; Idaho National Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho;Kansas City Plant in Kansas City, Missouri; Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina; and Waste Control Specialists, LLC, site near Andrews, Texas. As required by CEQ NEPA regulations, the No Action Alternative was also analyzed as a basis for comparison. DOE intends to decide (1) where to locate the elemental mercury storage facility(ies) and (2) whether to use existing buildings, new buildings, or a combination of existing and new buildings. DOE’s Preferred Alternative for the long-term management and storage of mercury is the Waste Control Specialists, LLC, site near Andrews, Texas.

The Columbia River and its tributaries are the primary water system in the Pacific Northwest, draining some 219,000 square miles in seven states and another 39,500 square miles in British Columbia. Beginning in the 1930`s, the Columbia River has been significantly modified by construction of 30 major dams on the river and its tributaries, along with dozens of non-Federal projects. Construction and subsequent operation of these water development projects have contributed to eight primary uses of the river system, including navigation, flood control, irrigation, electric power generation, fish migration, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and water supply and quality considerations. Increasing stress on the water development of the Columbia River and its tributaries has led primary Federal agencies to undertake intensive analysis and evaluation of the operation of these projects. These agencies are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, who operate the large Federal dams on the river, and the Bonneville Power Administration who sells the power generated at the dams. This review, termed the System Operation Review (SOR), has as its ultimate goal to define a strategy for future operation of the major Columbia River projects which effectively considers the needs of all river uses. This volume, Appendix D: Cultural resources appendix, Technical imput includes the following: Development of geomorphology based framework for cultural resources management, Dworshak Reservoir, Idaho; Impact profiles for SOR reservoirs; comments from the following Native American tribes: Burns Paiute Tribe; Coville Confederated Tribes; Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation; Confederated Tribes and bands of the Yakama Indian Nation (comments); Nez Perce Tribe; Coeur D`Alene Tribe; Spokane Tribe of Indians; The confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation.

Pursuant to the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-414), DOE was directed to designate a facility or facilities for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury generated within the United States. Therefore, DOE has analyzed the storage of up to 10,000 metric tons (11,000 tons) of elemental mercury in a facility(ies) constructed and operated in accordance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (74 FR 31723). DOE prepared this Final Mercury Storage EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500–1508), and DOE’s NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR 1021) to evaluate reasonable alternatives for a facility(ies) for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury. This Final Mercury Storage EIS analyzes the potential environmental, human health, and socioeconomic impacts of elemental mercury storage at seven candidate locations: Grand Junction Disposal Site near Grand Junction, Colorado; Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; Hawthorne Army Depot near Hawthorne, Nevada; Idaho National Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho; Kansas City Plant in Kansas City, Missouri; Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina; and Waste Control Specialists, LLC, site near Andrews, Texas. As required by CEQ NEPA regulations, the No Action Alternative was also analyzed as a basis for comparison. DOE intends to decide (1) where to locate the elemental mercury storage facility(ies) and (2) whether to use existing buildings, new buildings, or a combination of existing and new buildings. DOE’s Preferred Alternative for the long-term management and storage of mercury is the Waste Control Specialists, LLC, site near Andrews, Texas.

This programmatic environmental impactstatement (PElS) was prepared for the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Ground Water Project to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This PElS provides an analysis of the potential impacts of the alternatives and ground water compliance strategies as well as potential cumulative impacts. On November 8, 1978, Congress enacted the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978, Public Law, codified at 42 USC §7901 et seq. Congress found that uranium mill tailings " ... may pose a potential and significant radiation health hazard to the public, and that every reasonable effort should be made to provide for stabilization, disposal, and control in a safe, and environmentally sound manner of such tailings in order to prevent or minimize other environmental hazards from such tailings." Congress authorized the Secretary of Energy to designate inactive uranium processing sites for remedial action by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Congress also directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set the standards to be followed by the DOE for this process of stabilization, disposal, and control. On January 5, 1983, EPA published standards (40 CFR Part 192) for the disposal and cleanup of residual radioactive materials. On September 3, 1985, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit set aside and remanded to EPA the ground water provisions of the standards. The EPA proposed new standards to replace remanded sections and changed other sections of 40 CFR Part 192. These proposed standards were published in the Federal Register on September 24, 1987 (52 FR 36000). Section 108 of the UMTRCA requires that DOE comply with EPA's proposed standards in the absence of final standards. The Ground Water Project was planned under the proposed standards. On January 11, 1995, EPA published the final rule, with which the DOE must now comply. The PElS and the Ground Water Project are in accordance with the final standards. The EPA reserves the right to modify the ground water standards, if necessary, based on changes in EPA drinking water standards. Appendix A contains a copy of the 1983 EPA ground water compliance standards, the 1987 proposed changes to the standards, and the 1995 final rule. Under UMTRA, DOE is responsible for bringing the designated processing sites into compliance with the EPA ground water standards and complying with all other applicable standards and requirements. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must concur with DOE's actions. States are full participants in the process. The DOE also must consult with any affected Indian tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Uranium processing activities at most of the inactive mill sites resulted in the contamination of ground water beneath and, in some cases, downgradient of the sites. This contaminated ground water often has elevated levels of constituents such as but not limited to uranium and nitrates. The purpose of the UMTRA Ground Water Project is to eliminate or reduce to acceptable levels the potential health and environmental consequences of milling activities by meeting the EPA ground water standards.

This document provides an analysis of the potential impacts associated with the proposed action, which is continued operation of Naval Petroleum Reserve No. I (NPR-1) at the Maximum Efficient Rate (MER) as authorized by Public law 94-258, the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 (Act). The document also provides a similar analysis of alternatives to the proposed action, which also involve continued operations, but under lower development scenarios and lower rates of production. NPR-1 is a large oil and gas field jointly owned and operated by the federal government and Chevron U.SA Inc. (CUSA) pursuant to a Unit Plan Contract that became effective in 1944; the government`s interest is approximately 78% and CUSA`s interest is approximately 22%. The government`s interest is under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Energy (DOE). The facility is approximately 17,409 acres (74 square miles), and it is located in Kern County, California, about 25 miles southwest of Bakersfield and 100 miles north of Los Angeles in the south central portion of the state. The environmental analysis presented herein is a supplement to the NPR-1 Final Environmental ImpactStatement of that was issued by DOE in 1979 (1979 EIS). As such, this document is a Supplemental Environmental ImpactStatement (SEIS).

This record of decision (ROD) completes the environmental review by the Federal Administration (FRA) of the proposal by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) to extend electric train operation from New Haven, CT, to Boston, MA. In this ROD, FRA approves Amtrak`s proposal subject to the inclusion into the project of a number of measures to eliminate or minimize potential adverse environmental impacts.

This statement evaluates and compares the environmental impacts associated with the remedial actions of the residual radioactive materials remaining at the inactive uranium processing site and associated vicinity properties at Grand Junction, Mesa County, Colorado. This statement is also intended to aid the BLM in amending their management framework plans and final resource management plan, as well as assisting in compliance with the withdrawal application as appropriate. The site is a 114-acre tract of private and state owned land which contains approximately 3.1 million cubic yards of tailings and associated contaminated soils. The vicinity properties are homes, businesses, public buildings, and vacant lots which may have been contaminated during construction by the use of tailings as building material. An estimated 3465 vicinity properties would be cleaned up during remedial action of the tailings pile. The tailings were produced by the former Climax Uranium Company which processed uranium ore, which it sold to the US Atomic Energy Commission from 1951 to 1966 and to private sources from 1966 to 1970. This statement evaluates six alternatives for stabilization and disposal of the tailings and other contaminated materials: (1) No action. (2) Stabilization at the Grand Junction site. (3) Disposal at the Cheney Reservoir site with truck transport. (4) Disposal at the Cheney Reservoir site with train and truck transport. (5) Disposal at the Two Road site with truck transport. (6) Disposal at the Two Road site with train and truck transport. All of the alternatives except no action include remedial action at an estimated 3465 vicinity properties. Alternative 3 is DOE`s preferred alternative.

This Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) assesses the potential environmental impacts, both on a broad programmatic level and on a project-specific level, concerning a proposed action to provide new tritium production capacity to meet the nation`s nuclear defense requirements well into the 21st century. A capacity equivalent to that of about a 3,000-megawatt (thermal) heavy-water reactor was assumed as a reference basis for analysis in this EIS; this is the approximate capacity of the existing production reactors at DOE`s Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina. The EIS programmatic alternatives address Departmental decisions to be made on whether to build new production facilities, whether to build one or more complexes, what size production capacity to provide, and when to provide this capacity. Project-specific impacts for siting, constructing, and operating new production reactor capacity are assessed for three alternative sites: the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho; and the Savannah River Site. For each site, the impacts of three reactor technologies (and supporting facilities) are assessed: a heavy-water reactor, a light-water reactor, and a modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. Impacts of the no-action alternative also are assessed. The EIS evaluates impacts related to air quality; noise levels; surface water, groundwater, and wetlands; land use; recreation; visual environment; biotic resources; historical, archaeological, and cultural resources; socioeconomics; transportation; waste management; and human health and safety. The EIS describes in detail the potential radioactive releases from new production reactors and support facilities and assesses the potential doses to workers and the general public. This volume contains references; a list of preparers and recipients; acronyms, abbreviations, and units of measure; a glossary; an index and three appendices.

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or the Laboratory) operations data for Calendar Year (CY) 2012 mostly fell within the 2008 Site-Wide Environmental ImpactStatement (SWEIS) projections. Operation levels for one LANL facility exceeded the 2008 SWEIS capability projections—Radiochemistry Facility; however, none of the capability increases caused exceedances in radioactive air emissions, waste generation, or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge. Several facilities exceeded the2008 SWEIS levels for waste generation quantities; however, all were one-time, non-routine events that do not reflect the day-to-day operations of the Laboratory. In addition, total site-wide waste generation quantities were below SWEIS projections for all waste types, reflecting the overall levels of operations at both the Key and Non-Key Facilities. Although gas and electricity consumption have remained within the 2008 SWEIS limits for utilities, water consumption exceeded the 2008 SWEIS projections by 27 million gallons in CY 2012.

This paper outlines the various steps pursued in performing a generic safety assessment of the various technologies considered for the low-level mixed waste (LLMW) ``No-Flame`` option in the US Department of Energy (DOE) Waste Management Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement (WM PEIS). The treatment technologies for the ``No-Flame`` option differ from previous LLMW technologies analyzed in the WM PEIS in that the incineration and thermal desorption technologies are replaced by sludge washing, soil washing, debris washing, and organic destruction. A set of dominant waste treatment processes and accident scenarios were selected for analysis by means of a screening process. A subset of results (release source terms) from this analysis is presented.

This Supplement Analysis (SA) has been prepared to determine if the Site-Wide Environmental ImpactStatement for Continued Operations of Los Alamos National Laboratory (SWEIS) (DOE/EIS-0238) (DOE 1999a) adequately addresses the environmental effects of introducing a proposed project for the clean-out and decontamination (DECON) of certain large containment vessels into the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) Building located at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Technical Area (TA) 3, or if the SWEIS needs to be supplemented. After undergoing the clean-out and DECON steps, the subject containment vessels would be disposed of at LANL's TA-54 low-level waste (LLW) disposal site or, as appropriate, at a DOE or commercial offsite permitted LLW-regulated landfill; after actinides were recovered from the DECON solution within the CMR Building, they would be moved to LANL's TA-55 Plutonium Facility and undergo subsequent processing at that facility for reuse. Council on Environmental Quality regulations at Title 40, Section 1502.9(c) of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 1502.9[c]) require federal agencies to prepare a supplement to an environmental impactstatement (EIS) when an agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns, or there are changed circumstances or new or changed information relevant to concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. This SA is prepared in accordance with Section 10 CFR 10211.314(c) of the DOE's regulations for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementation that states: ''When it is unclear whether or not an EIS supplement is required, DOE shall prepare a Supplement Analysis''. This SA specifically compares key impact assessment parameters of the proposed project action with the LANL operations capabilities evaluated in the 1999 SWEIS in support DOE's long-term hydrodynamic testing program at LANL, as well as the waste disposal capabilities evaluated in the SWEIS in support of LANL operations. It also provides an explanation of any differences between the proposed action and activities described in the SWEIS analysis. The SWEIS analyzed the impacts of performing plutonium (Pu) and actinide activities, including hydrodynamic testing support activity, at the Plutonium Facility and at the CMR Building.

Volume 1 to the Department of Energy`s Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Management Programs Environmental ImpactStatement evaluates a range of alternatives for managing naval spent nuclear fuel expected to be removed from US Navy nuclear-powered vessels and prototype reactors through the year 2035. The Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) considers a range of alternatives for examining and storing naval spent nuclear fuel, including alternatives that terminate examination and involve storage close to the refueling or defueling site. The EIS covers the potential environmental impacts of each alternative, as well as cost impacts and impacts to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program mission. This Appendix covers aspects of the alternatives that involve managing naval spent nuclear fuel at four naval shipyards and the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program Kesselring Site in West Milton, New York. This Appendix also covers the impacts of alternatives that involve examining naval spent nuclear fuel at the Expended Core Facility in Idaho and the potential impacts of constructing and operating an inspection facility at any of the Department of Energy (DOE) facilities considered in the EIS. This Appendix also considers the impacts of the alternative involving limited spent nuclear fuel examinations at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. This Appendix does not address the impacts associated with storing naval spent nuclear fuel after it has been inspected and transferred to DOE facilities. These impacts are addressed in separate appendices for each DOE site.

The Final Environmental ImpactStatement (FEIS) (Volume 1), was prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in accordance with regulation 10 CFR Part 51, which implements the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to assess the potential environmental impacts for licensing the construction and operation of a proposed gaseous centrifuge enrichment facility to be built in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana by Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (LES). The proposed facility would have a production capacity of about 866 metric tons annually of up to 5 weight percent enriched UF{sub 6}, using a proven centrifuge technology. Included in the assessment are co on, both normal operations and potential accidents (internal and external events), and the eventual decontamination and decommissioning of the site. In order to help assure that releases from the operation of the facility and potential impacts on the public are as low as reasonably achievable, an environmental monitoring program was developed by LES to detect significant changes in the background levels of uranium around the site. Other issues addressed include the purpose and need for the facility, the alternatives to the proposed action, potential disposition of the tails, the site selection process, and environmental justice. The NRC staff concludes that the facility can be constructed and operated with small and acceptable impacts on the public and the environment, and proposes to issue a license to the applicant, Louisiana Energy Services, to authorize construction and operation of the proposed facility. The letters in this Appendix have been divided into three sections. Section One contains letters to which the NRC responded by addressing specific comments. Section Two contains the letters that concerned the communities of Forest Grove and Center Springs. Section Three is composed of letters that required no response. These letters were generally in support of the facility.

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is considering 12 different alternatives for acquiring energy resources over the next 20 years. Each of the alternatives utilizes a full range of energy resources (e.g., coal, cogeneration, conservation, and nuclear); however, individual alternatives place greater emphases on different types of power-producing resources and employ different timetables for implementing these resources. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of each alternative and the economic valuations of these impacts, will be an important consideration in the alternative selection process. In this report we discuss the methods used to estimate environmental impacts from the resource alternatives. We focus on pollutant emissions rates, ground-level air concentrations of basic criteria pollutants, the acidity of rain, particulate deposition, ozone concentrations, visibility attenuation, global warming, human health effects, agricultural and forest impacts, and wildlife impacts. For this study, pollutant emission rates are computed by processing BPA data on power production and associated pollutant emissions. The assessment of human health effects from ozone indicated little variation between the resource alternatives. Impacts on plants, crops, and wildlife populations from power plant emissions are projected to be minimal for all resource alternatives.

Two types of projects in the spent nuclear fuel and environmental restoration and waste management activities at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) are described. These are: foreseeable proposed projects where some funding for preliminary planning and/or conceptual design may already be authorized, but detailed design or planning will not begin until the Department of Energy (DOE) has determined that the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act process for the project have been completed; planned or ongoing projects not yet completed but whose National Environmental Policy Act documentation is already completed or is expected to be completed before the Record of Decision for this Envirorunental ImpactStatement (EIS) is issued. The section on project summaries describe the projects (both foreseeable proposed and ongoing).They provide specific information necessary to analyze the environmental impacts of these projects. Chapter 3 describes which alternative(s) each project supports. Summaries are included for (a) spent nuclear fuel projects, (b) environmental remediation projects, (c) the decontamination and decommissioning of surplus INEL facilities, (d) the construction, upgrade, or replacement of existing waste management facilities, (e) infrastructure projects supporting waste management activities, and (f) research and development projects supporting waste management activities.

The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Disposal Operations is responsible for developing a permanent disposal capability for a small volume, but highly radioactive, class of commercial low-level radioactive waste, known as Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) low-level radioactive waste. DOE has issued a draft environmental impactstatement (EIS) and will be completing a final EIS under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that evaluates a range of disposal alternatives. Like other classes of radioactive waste, proposing and evaluating disposal options for GTCC waste is highly controversial, presents local and national impacts, and generates passionate views from stakeholders. Recent national and international events, such as the cancellation of the Yucca Mountain project and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, have heighten stakeholder awareness of everything nuclear, including disposal of radioactive waste. With these challenges, the Office of Disposal Operations recognizes that informed decision-making that will result from stakeholder engagement and participation is critical to the success of the GTCC EIS project. This paper discusses the approach used by the Office of Disposal Operations to engage stakeholders on the GTCC EIS project, provides advice based on our experiences, and proffers some ideas for future engagements in today's open, always connected cyber environment. (authors)

The proposed action involves the continued operation of the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 (NPR-1) at the Maximum Efficiency Rate (MER) through the year approximately 2025 in accordance with the requirements of the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-258). NPR-1 is a large oil and gas field comprising 74 square miles. MER production primarily includes continued operation and maintenance of existing facilities; a well drilling and abandonment program; construction and operation of future gas processing, gas compression, and steamflood, waterflood, cogeneration, and butane isomerization facilities; and continued implementation of a comprehensive environmental protection program. The basis for the draft environment impactstatement (DSEIS) proposed action is the April 1989 NPR-1 Long Range Plan which describes a myriad of planned operational, maintenance, and development activities over the next 25--30 years. These activities include the continued operation of existing facilities; additional well drilling; expanded steamflood operations; expanded waterflood programs; expanded gas compression, gas lift, gas processing and gas injection; construction of a new cogeneration facility; construction of a new isobutane facility; and a comprehensive environmental program designed to minimize environmental impacts.

in and interpretation of the EA. 3.1 Power System Impacts The effects on electricity generation and its costs are in those areas. Â· According to BPA, the lower Snake dams provide voltage control or reactive power. Â· There are two potential problems in the electricity reserves analysis. The first is the valuation of lost

Argonne National Laboratory conducted an inventory of known archaeological and historic sites in areas that could be affected by the hydropower operation alternatives under analysis in the power marketing environmental impactstatement for the Western Area Power Administration`s Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects. The study areas included portions of the Green River (Flaming Gorge Dam to Cub Creek) in Utah and Colorado and the Gunnison River (Blue Mesa Reservoir to Crystal Dam) in Colorado. All previous archaeological surveys and previously recorded prehistoric and historic sites, structures, and features were inventoried and plotted on maps (only survey area maps are included in this report). The surveys were classified by their level of intensity, and the sites were classified according to their age, type, and contents. These data (presented here in tabular form) permit a general assessment of the character and distribution of archaeological remains in the study areas, as well as an indication of the sampling basis for such an assessment. To provide an adequate context for the descriptions of the archaeological and historic sites, this report also presents overviews of the environmental setting and the regional prehistory, history, and ethnography for each study area.

This Final Environmental ImpactStatement (FEIS) contains an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the construction and operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) for the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) fuel debris at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental laboratory (INEEL). US Department of Energy-Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID) is proposing to design, construct, and operate at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP). The TMI-2 fuel debris would be removed from wet storage, transported to the ISFSI, and placed in storage modules on a concrete basemat. As part of its overall spent nuclear fuel (SNF) management program, the US DOE has prepared a final programmatic environmental impactstatement (EIS) that provides an overview of the spent fuel management proposed for INEEL, including the construction and operation of the TMI-2 ISFSI. In addition, DOE-ID has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) to describe the environmental impacts associated with the stabilization of the storage pool and the construction/operation of the ISFSI at the ICPP. As provided in NRC`s NEPA procedures, a FEIS of another Federal agency may be adopted in whole or in part in accordance with the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 1506.3 of the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Under 40 CFR 1506.3(b), if the actions covered by the original EIS and the proposed action are substantially the same, the agency adopting another agency`s statement is not required to recirculate it except as a final statement. The NRC has determined that its proposed action is substantially the same as actions considered in DOE`s environmental documents referenced above and, therefore, has elected to adopt the DOE documents as the NRC FEIS.

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed off Energy.gov. Are you0and Transparency,8-9612-985-2007Supplemental Environmental Impact

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) is proposing to clean up surface contamination and implement a ground water compliance strategy to address contamination that resulted from historical uranium-ore processing at the Moab Uranium Mill Tailings Site (Moab site), Grand County, Utah. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) {section} 4321 et seq., DOE prepared this environmental impactstatement (EIS) to assess the potential environmental impacts of remediating the Moab site and vicinity properties (properties where uranium mill tailings were used as construction or fill material before the potential hazards associated with the tailings were known). DOE analyzed the potential environmental impacts of both on-site and off-site remediation and disposal alternatives involving both surface and ground water contamination. DOE also analyzed the No Action alternative as required by NEPA implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality. DOE has determined that its preferred alternatives are the off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active ground water remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal location is the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred method of transportation is rail. The basis for this determination is discussed later in this Summary. DOE has entered into agreements with 12 federal, tribal, state, and local agencies to be cooperating agencies in the development and preparation of this EIS. Several of the cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law and intend to use the EIS to support their own decisionmaking. The others have expertise relevant to potential environmental, social, or economic impacts within their geographic regions. During the preparation of the EIS, DOE met with the cooperating agencies, provided them with opportunities to review preliminary versions of the document, and addressed their comments and concerns to the fullest extent possible. DOE received over 1,600 comments on the draft EIS from the public, federal, state and local agencies, tribes, governors, and members of Congress. DOE has considered these comments in finalizing the EIS and has provided responses to all comments in the EIS.

This Supplement Analysis (SA) has been prepared to determine if the Site-Wide Environmental ImpactStatement for Continued Operations of Los Alamos National Laboratory (SWEIS) (DOE/EIS-0238) adequately addresses the environmental effects of modifying the horizontal restricted airspace boundaries at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), to include LANL's Technical Areas (TA)-33 and TA-54, or if the SWEIS needs to be supplemented. Council on Environmental Quality regulations at Title 40, Section 1502.9(c) of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 1502.9[c]) require federal agencies to prepare a supplement to an EIS when an agency makes substantial changes in the Proposed Action that are relevant to Environmental concerns or when there are new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts. This SA specifically compares key impact assessment parameters of this proposal to the SWEIS impact analysis, and considers LANL operational accident analyses. The Sa concludes with a finding of fact regarding whether the environmental effects of the Proposed Action are adequately bounded by the analyses of impacts projected by the 1999 Site-Wide Environmental ImpactStatement for Continued Operation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, or whether a Supplemental EIS is required.

This report provides technical support information for use in analyzing environmental impacts associated with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) low-level radioactive waste (LLW) management alternatives in the Waste-Management (WM) Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement (PEIS). Waste loads treated and disposed of for each of the LLW alternatives considered in the DOE WM PEIS are presented. Waste loads are presented for DOE Waste Management (WM) wastes, which are generated from routine operations. Radioactivity concentrations and waste quantities for treatment and disposal under the different LLW alternatives are described for WM waste. 76 refs., 14 figs., 42 tabs.

to natural gas and electricity customers through LDCs can blunt some of the impact of carbon pricing of a greenhouse gas control program. Higher prices send the appropriate market signals to consumers to reduceTESTIMONY Statement of Gilbert E. Metcalf Professor of Economics Tufts University Medford, MA (617

to require preparation of an environmental impactstatement. When an environmental impactstatement, then the environmental impactstatement will discuss all of these effects on the human environment. #12;PrioritiesCommunity Impact Analysis Emerging Approaches #12;1960s · 1964 Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964

The environmental impacts associated with remedial actions in connection with residual radioactive materials remaining at the inactive uranium processing site located in Canonsburg, Washington County, Pennsylvania are evaluated. The Canonsburg site is an 18.5-acre property that was formerly owned by the Vitro Rare Metals Company. The expanded Canonsburg site would be 30-acre property that would include the Canonsburg site (the former Vitro Rare Metals plant), seven adjacent private houses, and the former Georges Pottery property. During the period 1942 through 1957 the Vitro Manufacturing Company and its successor, the Vitro Corporation of America, processed onsite residues and ores, and government-owned ores, concentrates, and scraps to extract uranium and other rare metals. The Canonsburg site is now the Canon Industrial Park. In addition to storing the residual radioactive materials of this process at the Canonsburg site, about 12,000 tons of radioactively contaminated materials were transferred to a railroad landfill in Burrell Township, Indiana County, Pennsylvania. This Canonsburg FEIS evaluates five alternatives for removing the potential public health hazard associated with the radioactively contaminated materials. In addition to no action, these alternatives involve various combinations of stabilization of the radioactively contaminated materials in place or decontamination of the Canonsburg and Burrell sites by removing the radioactively contaminated materials to another location. In addition to the two sites mentioned, a third site located in Hanover Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania has been considered as a disposal site to which the radioactively contaminated materials presently located at either of the other two sites might be moved.

Pursuant to the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-414), DOE was directed to designate a facility or facilities for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury generated within the United States. Therefore, DOE has analyzed the storage of up to 10,000 metric tons (11,000 tons) of elemental mercury in a facility(ies) constructed and operated in accordance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (74 FR 31723). DOE prepared this Final Mercury Storage EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500–1508), and DOE’s NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR 1021) to evaluate reasonable alternatives for a facility(ies) for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury. This Final Mercury Storage EIS analyzes the potential environmental, human health, and socioeconomic impacts of elemental mercury storage at seven candidate locations: Grand Junction Disposal Site near Grand Junction, Colorado; Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; Hawthorne Army Depot near Hawthorne, Nevada; Idaho National Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho; Kansas City Plant in Kansas City, Missouri; Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina; and Waste Control Specialists, LLC, site near Andrews, Texas. As required by CEQ NEPA regulations, the No Action Alternative was also analyzed as a basis for comparison. DOE intends to decide (1) where to locate the elemental mercury storage facility(ies) and (2) whether to use existing buildings, new buildings, or a combination of existing and new buildings. DOE’s Preferred Alternative for the long-term management and storage of mercury is the Waste Control Specialists, LLC, site near Andrews, Texas.

This chapter introduces the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) role in the conveyance and transfer of 10 land parcels at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) to the Incorporated County of Los Alamos and to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, in trust for San Ildefonso Pueblo, as required by Public Law (PL) 105-119; a statement of the purpose and need for the DOE's action; and an overview of the alternatives analyzed in this Draft Conveyance and Transfer of Certain Land Tracts Environmental ImpactStatement (Draft CT EIS). In addition, this chapter explains DOE decisions that the Draft CT EIS is intended to support, as well as the relationship of this document to other environmental documentation prepared by the DOE. At the conclusion of this chapter is an overview of the Draft CT EIS.

In April 1995, the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of the Navy, as a cooperating agency, issued the Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental ImpactStatement (1995 EIS). The 1995 EIS analyzed alternatives for managing The Department's existing and reasonably foreseeable inventories of spent nuclear fuel through the year 2035. It also included a detailed analysis of environmental restoration and waste management activities at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). The analysis supported facility-specific decisions regarding new, continued, or planned environmental restoration and waste management operations. The Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in June 1995 and amended in February 1996. It documented a number of projects or activities that would be implemented as a result of decisions regarding INL Site operations. In addition to the decisions that were made, decisions on a number of projects were deferred or projects have been canceled. DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures (found in 10 CFR Part 1 021.330(d)) require that a Supplement Analysis of site-wide EISs be done every five years to determine whether the site-wide EIS remains adequate. While the 1995 EIS was not a true site-wide EIS in that several programs were not included, most notably reactor operations, this method was used to evaluate the adequacy of the 1995 EIS. The decision to perform a Supplement Analysis was supported by the multi-program aspect of the 1995 EIS in conjunction with the spirit of the requirement for periodic review. The purpose of the SA is to determine if there have been changes in the basis upon which an EIS was prepared. This provides input for an evaluation of the continued adequacy of the EIS in light of those changes (i.e., whether there are substantial changes in the proposed action, significant new circumstances, or new information relevant to environmental concerns). This is not to question the previous analysis or decisions based on that analysis, but whether the environmental impact analyses are still adequate in light of programmatic changes. In addition, the information for each of the projects for which decisions were deferred in the ROD needs to be reviewed to determine if decisions can be made or if any additional NEP A analysis needs to be completed. The Supplement Analysis is required to contain sufficient information for DOE to determine whether (1) an existing EIS should be supplemented, (2) a new EIS should be prepared, or (3) no further NEP A documentation is required.

The impacts of extending electrification on the National Railroad Passenger Corporation's (Amtrak) Northeast Corridor (NEC) from New Haven, Connecticut to Boston, Massachusetts are of direct concern to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). To improve rail service and increase ridership between New York and Boston, Amtrak proposes the electrification of the NEC main line between New Haven, CT and Boston, MA using an overhead 2 x 25,000 volt - 60 hertz power system. The volume Number III contains the detailed technical studies that were performed in order to identify and evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Some of these studies have been included entirely in the Draft Environmental ImpactStatements-draft (DEIS/R) (Volume 1). The technical evaluations performed were based upon regulatory requirements as well as substantive issues raised by individuals and public agencies as part of the public participation program.

This volume contains the following attachments: transportation of Naval spent nuclear fuel; description of Naval spent nuclear receipt and handling at the Expended Core Facility at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory; comparison of storage in new water pools versus dry container storage; description of storage of Naval spent nuclear fuel at servicing locations; description of receipt, handling, and examination of Naval spent nuclear fuel at alternate DOE facilities; analysis of normal operations and accident conditions; and comparison of the Naval spent nuclear fuel storage environmental assessment and this environmental impactstatement.

This supplemental environmental impactstatement by the Western Area Power Administration assesses the environmental effects of constructing, operating, and maintaining about 30 miles of 230/345-kV transmission line between the existing Gore Pass Substation northwest of Kremmling, Colorado, and a proposed new substation (not part of this action) near the Ute Pass Road. Alternatives assessed included routing and design alternatives plus the alternatives addressed in the Hayden-Blue River Final EIS, issued by the Rural Electrification Administration in July 1982 and adopted by DOE in June 1985 (see DOE/EIS-0116).

Models have been used to assess the groundwater impacts to support the Draft Environmental ImpactStatement for the Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) Low-Level Radioactive Waste and GTCC-Like Waste (DOE-EIS 2011) for a facility sited at the Idaho National Laboratory and the Environmental Assessment for the INL Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project (INL 2011). Groundwater impacts are primarily a function of (1) location determining the geologic and hydrologic setting, (2) disposal facility configuration, and (3) radionuclide source, including waste form and release from the waste form. In reviewing the assumptions made between the model parameters for the two different groundwater impacts assessments, significant differences were identified. This report presents the two sets of model assumptions and discusses their origins and implications for resulting dose predictions. Given more similar model parameters, predicted doses would be commensurate.

This Draft Environmental ImpactStatement (DEIS) was prepared by the US Department of Energy (US DOE). The proposed action is the issuance of Presidential Permit PP-89 by DOE to Bangor Hydro-Electric Company to construct and operate a new international transmission line interconnection to New Brunswick, Canada that would consist of an 83.8 mile (US portion), 345-kilovolt (kV) alternating current transmission line from the US-Canadian border at Baileyville, Maine to an existing substation at Orrington, Maine. The principal environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the transmission line would be incremental in nature and would include the conversion of forested uplands (mostly commercial timberlands) and wetlands to right-of-way (small trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation). The proposed line would also result in localized minor to moderate visual impacts and would contribute a minor incremental increase in the exposure of some individuals to electromagnetic fields. This DEIS documents the purpose and need for the proposed action, describes the proposed action and alternatives considered and provides a comparison of the proposed and alternatives routes, and provides detailed information on analyses of the environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives, as well as mitigative measures to minimize impacts.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) is engaged in two related decision making processes concerning: (1) the transportation, receipt, processing, and storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) at the DOE Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) which will focus on the next 10 years; and (2) programmatic decisions on future spent nuclear fuel management which will emphasize the next 40 years. DOE is analyzing the environmental consequences of these spent nuclear fuel management actions in this two-volume Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS). Volume 1 supports broad programmatic decisions that will have applicability across the DOE complex and describes in detail the purpose and need for this DOE action. Volume 2 is specific to actions at the INEL. This document, which limits its discussion to the Savannah River Site (SRS) spent nuclear fuel management program, supports Volume 1 of the EIS. Following the introduction, Chapter 2 contains background information related to the SRS and the framework of environmental regulations pertinent to spent nuclear fuel management. Chapter 3 identifies spent nuclear fuel management alternatives that DOE could implement at the SRS, and summarizes their potential environmental consequences. Chapter 4 describes the existing environmental resources of the SRS that spent nuclear fuel activities could affect. Chapter 5 analyzes in detail the environmental consequences of each spent nuclear fuel management alternative and describes cumulative impacts. The chapter also contains information on unavoidable adverse impacts, commitment of resources, short-term use of the environment and mitigation measures.

1 Policy Statement and Interim Procedures CORNELL UNIVERSITY POLICY LIBRARY POLICY 8.3 Volume: 8 Emergency Planning POLICY STATEMENT Cornell University organizes, coordinates, and directs available of this effort is dependent on the development of periodic review of comprehensive plans. This policy includes

The CMRR EIS examines the potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action of consolidating and relocating the mission-critical CMR capabilities from a degraded building to a new modern building(s).

The Proposed Action addressed in this EIS is to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain in southern Nevada for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste currently in storage at 72 commercial and 5 DOE sites across the United States. The EIS evaluates (1) projected impacts on the Yucca Mountain environment of the construction, operation and monitoring, and eventual closure of the geologic repository; (2) the potential long-term impacts of repository disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste; (3) the potential impacts of transporting these materials nationally and in the State of Nevada; and (4) the potential impacts of not proceeding with the Proposed Action.

This (EIS) assesses the potential environmental impacts, both on a broad programmatic level and on a project-specific level, concerning a proposed action to provide new tritium production capacity to meet the nation`s nuclear defense requirements well into the 21st century. A capacity equivalent to that of about a 3,000-megawatt (thermal) heavy-water reactor was assumed as a reference basis for analysis in this EIS; this is the approximate capacity of the existing production reactors at DOE`s Savannah River Site. The EIS programmatic alternatives address Departmental decisions to be made on whether to build new production facilities, whether to build one or more complexes, what size production capacity to provide, and when to provide this capacity. Project-specific impacts for siting, constructing, and operating new production reactor capacity are assessed for three alternative sites: the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho; and the Savannah River Site. For each site, the impacts of three reactor technologies (and supporting facilities) are assessed: a heavy-water reactor, a light-water reactor, and a modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. Impacts of the no-action alternative also are assessed. The EIS evaluates impacts related to air quality; noise levels; surface water, groundwater, and wetlands; land use; recreation; visual environment; biotic resources; historical, archaeological, and cultural resources; socioeconomics; transportation; waste management; and human health and safety. The EIS describes in detail the potential radioactive releases from new production reactors and support facilities and assesses the potential doses to workers and the general public. This volume contains the analysis of programmatic alternatives, project alternatives, affected environment of alternative sites, environmental consequences, and environmental regulations and permit requirements.

The post-closure performance of the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) and Area 5 RWMS are evaluated for the Site-Wide Environmental ImpactStatement using current performance assessment and composite analysis methods and models. Two alternatives with different future waste volumes and inventories are evaluated. The No Action Alternative evaluates the inventory disposed through fiscal year (FY) 2010 plus an additional 4.5E5 cubic meters (m3) (1.59E7 cubic feet [ft3]) of waste disposed at the Area 5 RWMS. The Expanded Operations Alternative evaluates the FY 2010 inventory plus an additional 1.42E6 m3 (5.03E7 ft3) of waste disposed at the Area 5 RWMS and 4.93E4 m3 (1.74E6 ft3) disposed at the Area 3 RWMS. Both the No Action and Expanded Operations Alternatives have a reasonable expectation of meeting all performance objectives of U.S. Department of Energy Order DOE O 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management.” No significant difference between the two alternatives was found because the waste concentrations are similar. The performance assessment model assesses radiological risk for residents at the RWMS boundary where risk is more closely related to waste concentration than total waste inventory. Results for the composite analysis also indicate that the dose constraint and dose limit can be met for both alternatives.

This report was prepared to support the analysis of risks and costs associated with the proposed treatment of low-level mixed waste (LLMW) under management of the US Department of Energy (DOE). The various waste management alternatives for treatment of LLMW have been defined in the DOE`s Office of Waste Management Programmatic Environmental ImpactStatement. This technical memorandum estimates the waste material throughput expected at each proposed LLMW treatment facility and analyzes potential radiological and chemical releases at each DOE site resulting from treatment of these wastes. Models have been developed to generate site-dependent radiological profiles and waste-stream-dependent chemical profiles for these wastes. Current site-dependent inventories and estimates for future generation of LLMW have been obtained from DOE`s 1994 Mixed Waste Inventory Report (MWIR-2). Using treatment procedures developed by the Mixed Waste Treatment Project, the MWIR-2 database was analyzed to provide waste throughput and emission estimates for each of the different waste types assessed in this report. Uncertainties in the estimates at each site are discussed for waste material throughputs and radiological and chemical releases.

This report provides a summary of the conceptual design and other information necessary to understand the proposed remedial action at the expanded Canonsburg, Pennsylvania site. This design constitutes the current approach to stabilizing the radioactively contaminated materials in place in a manner that would fully protect the public health and environment. This summary is intended to provide sufficient detail for the reader to understand the proposed remedial action and the anticipated environmental impacts. The site conceptual design has been developed using available data. In some cases, elements of the design have not been developed fully and will be made final during the detailed design process.

This Supplement Analysis (SA) has been prepared to determine if the Site-Wide Environmental ImpactStatement for Continued Operations of Los Alamos National Laboratory (SWEIS) (DOE/EIS-0238) adequately addresses the environmental effects of recovery and storage for disposal of six strontium-90 (Sr-90) fueled radioisotope thermal electric generators (RTGs) at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Technical Area (TA)-54, Area G, or if the SWEIS needs to be supplemented. DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) proposed to recover and store six Sr-90 RTGs from the commercial sector as part of its Offsite-Source Recovery Project (OSRP). The OSRP focuses on the proactive recovery and storage of unwanted radioactive sealed sources exceeding the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) limits for Class C low-level waste (also known as Greater than Class C waste, or GTCC). In response to the events of September 11, 2001, NRC conducted a risk-based evaluation of potential vulnerabilities to terrorist threats involving NRC-licensed nuclear facilities and materials. NRC's evaluation concluded that possession of unwanted radioactive sealed sources with no disposal outlet presents a potential vulnerability (NRC 2002). In a November 25, 2003 letter to the manager of the NNSA's Los Alamos Site Office, the NRC Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response identified recovery of several Sr-90 RTGs as the highest priority and requested that DOE take whatever actions necessary to recovery these sources as soon as possible. This SA specifically compares key impact assessment parameters of this proposal to the offsite source recovery program evaluated in the SWEIS and a subsequent SA that evaluated a change to the approach of a portion of the recovery program. It also provides an explanation of any differences between the Proposed Action and activities described in the previous SWEIS and SA analyses.

The South Fork Tolt River Hydroelectric Project that world produce 6.55 average megawatts of firm energy per year and would be sited in the Snohomish River Basin, Washington, was evaluated by the Federal Energy Regulatory commission (FERC) along with six other proposed projects for environmental effects and economic feasibility Based on its economic analysis and environmental evaluation of the project, the FERC staff found that the South Fork Tolt River Project would be economically feasible and would result in insignificant Impacts if sedimentation issues could be resolved. Upon review, the BPA is adopting portions of the 1987 FERC FEIS that concern the South Fork Tolt River Hydroelectric Project and updating specific sections in an Attachment.

The DOE proposes to construct, operate, and decontaminate/decommission a TRU Waste Treatment Facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The four waste types that would be treated at the proposed facility would be remote-handled TRU mixed waste sludge, liquid low-level waste associated with the sludge, contact-handled TRU/alpha low-level waste solids, and remote-handled TRU/alpha low-level waste solids. The mixed waste sludge and some of the solid waste contain metals regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and may be classified as mixed waste. This document analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with five alternatives--No Action, the Low-Temperature Drying Alternative (Preferred Alternative), the Vitrification Alternative, the Cementation Alternative, and the Treatment and Waste Storage at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Alternative.

AES/Cedar Bay, Inc. proposes to construct and operate a cogeneration facility on and existing industrial site within the North District of Duval County, approximately eight miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. The plant will produce 225 megawatts of electricity for sale to Florida Power and Light Company. In addition, steam will be sold to the adjacent Seminole Kraft Corporation paper mill. The document, prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, assesses the proposed project and alternatives with respect to impacts on the natural and man-made environments. Potential mitigative measures are also evaluated. The Technical Appendix includes a copy of U.S. EPA's draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, FDER's Conditions of Power Plant Siting Certification, as well as other state agency reports pertinent to the proposed project.

DOE proposes to continue operating the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) located in Los Alamos County, in north-central New Mexico. DOE has identified and assessed four alternatives for the operation of LANL: (1) No Action, (2) Expanded Operations, (3) Reduced Operations, and (4) Greener. Expanded Operations is DOE's Preferred Alternative, with the exception that DOE would only implement pit manufacturing at a level of 20 pits per year. In the No Action Alternative, DOE would continue the historical mission support activities LANL has conducted at planned operational levels. In the Expanded Operations Alternative, DOE would operate LANL at the highest levels of activity currently foreseeable, including full implementation of the mission assignments from recent programmatic documents. Under the Reduced Operations Alternative, DOE would operate LANL at the minimum levels of activity necessary to maintain the capabilities to support the DOE mission in the near term. Under the Greener Alternative, DOE would operate LANL to maximize operations in support of nonproliferation, basic science, materials science, and other nonweapons areas, while minimizing weapons activities. Under all of the alternatives, the affected environment is primarily within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of LANL. Analyses indicate little difference in the environmental impacts among alternatives. The primary discriminators are: collective worker risk due to radiation exposure, socioeconomic effects due to LANL employment changes, and electrical power demand.

The National Nuclear Security Administration, a separately organized agency within DOE, is responsible for providing the Nation with nuclear weapons, ensuring the safety and reliability of those nuclear weapons, and supporting programs that reduce global nuclear proliferation. These missions are accomplished with a core team of highly trained nuclear experts. One of the major training facilities for these personnel is located at Technical Area 18 (TA-18), within the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico. Principal TA-18 operational activities involve research in and the design, development, construction, and application of experiments on nuclear criticality. Though TA-18 is judged to be secure by DOE's independent inspection office, its buildings and infrastructure are from 30 to more than 50 years old and are increasingly expensive to maintain and operate. Additionally, the TA-18 operations are located in a relatively isolated area, resulting in increasingly high costs to maintain a security Category I infrastructure. NNSA wishes to maintain the important capabilities currently provided at TA-18 in a manner that reduces the long-term costs for safeguards and security. NNSA proposes to accomplish this by relocating the TA-18 security Category I/II capabilities and materials to new locations. The TA-18 Relocation EIS evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with this proposed action at the following DOE sites: (1) a different site at LANL at Los Alamos, New Mexico; (2) the Sandia National Laboratories/New Mexico at Albuquerque, New Mexico; (3) the Nevada Test Site near Las Vegas, Nevada (the Preferred Alternative); and (4) the Argonne National Laboratory-West near Idaho Falls, Idaho. The EIS also analyzes the alternatives of upgrading the existing TA-18 facilities and the No Action Alternative of maintaining the operations at the current TA-18 location.

This report contains the environmental setting information developed for 25 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) installations in support of the DOE`s Programmatic Environmental Impact Study (PEIS) and the Baseline Environmental Management Report (BEMR). The common objective of the PEIS and the BEMR is to provide the public with information about the environmental contamination problems associated with major DOE facilities across the country, and to assess the relative risks that radiological and hazardous contaminants pose to the public, onsite workers, and the environment. Environmental setting information consists of the site-specific data required to model (using the Multimedia Environmental Pollutant Assessment System) the atmospheric, groundwater, and surface water transport of contaminants within and near the boundaries of the installations. The environmental settings data describes the climate, atmospheric dispersion, hydrogeology, and surface water characteristics of the installations. The number of discrete environmental settings established for each installation was governed by two competing requirements: (1) the risks posed by contaminants released from numerous waste sites were to be modeled as accurately as possible, and (2) the modeling required for numerous release sites and a large number of contaminants had to be completed within the limits imposed by the PEIS and BEMR schedule. The final product is the result of attempts to balance these competing concerns in a way that minimizes the number of settings per installation in order to meet the project schedule while at the same, time providing adequate, if sometimes highly simplified, representations of the different areas within an installation. Environmental settings were developed in conjunction with installation experts in the fields of meteorology, geology, hydrology, and geochemistry.